text:
Any San Antonio Mus See?
Social Situations
General Gun Discussions
> Any San Antonio Mus See?
January 27, 2004, 09:42 PM
I'm headed for San Antonio for a couple of days and wanted to know if there were any must see firearms places in/near.
If you enjoyed reading about "Any San Antonio Mus See?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
January 27, 2004, 11:19 PM
Gun ranges:
Bullet hole (full auto rental)
Blackhawk (avoid)
Place to shoot (nice big range)
Bracken (well maintained range easy to get to)
Keyser Soze
January 27, 2004, 11:23 PM
How about the Alamo. Lots of guns there. Nice tour as well.
January 27, 2004, 11:41 PM
Enjoy the riverwalk and the Alamo. I had a good time at both places.
Food is good but expensive on the riverwalk.
Alot of nice places to consume alcoholic beverage on or near the riverwalk as well. There is a nice piano bar next to the Hard Rock Cafe but I cant remember the name.
As for gunshops, follow the link that jsalcedo posted.
January 27, 2004, 11:54 PM
If its still there on the River Walk, go to DICKS LAST RESORT. Its an unusual place. Then at the Quarry, or many locations in SA, there is JOES CRAB SHACK. Good Sea Food there and great Steaks.
January 27, 2004, 11:59 PM
Howling at the Moon is the panio bar. I enjoy it. Depends when you go. If you are in San Antonio around Valentines day the riverwalk will be packed due to an anual Music teachers convention. But that makes the trip to the panio bar more fun. (thats last time i went to Howlin with My girl while she was at said convention)
January 28, 2004, 12:00 AM
Just out of curiosity, why avoid Blackhawk?
Dury's gun shop opened in a brand new store/location a few months ago and is worth a look. They are located right off of I37 south (heading towards Corpus) and is pretty close to down town. Nagel's on San Pedro is a pretty good place to dig around for something if you're not looking for anything in particular but their not exactly cheap. Do you know what days you'll be in town and are you just looking to look or looking to shoot? There are plenty of club matches around. In what part of town will you be staying?
The piano bar is either Howl at the Moon (was it up stairs and have two pianos?) or Durty Nelly's is pretty close as well (down by the water with lots of peanuts on the floor).
January 28, 2004, 12:03 AM
Nagel Gun & Sports Shop
6201 San Pedro Ave.
Ant time I find myself In San Antonio from El Paso the wife knows I have to have at least a couple of hours at Nagels.
January 28, 2004, 12:03 AM
also, if IIRC, there is a monthly gun show in SA, over by the ariport off of 410. There is also a good night club, actually 5 clubs in one called the Atrium there as well.
January 28, 2004, 12:12 AM
The pistol range has all of the targets lined up next to the backstop.
If you want to shoot at 25 yards then you stand on a concrete sidewalk
(no station dividers) 25 yards from the target. The same goes for 15 yards and 7 yards.
I have been shooting at 7 yards (informed the range office) and they stick a 15 yard pistol shooter at the target next to me.
If the 15 yard shooter has a stray more than a foot off his bullet is going into my back.
Also when you go to check or change your target there is no ceasefire.
The shooters walk down a live firing line with bullets kicking up dirt
just a few feet away.
There are no tables or chairs (all have been obliterated by gunfire)
You must set your range bag and guns on the ground.
There are cats, dogs and cows wandering around with bullet scars, missing limbs etc..
Could be a nice place if they cleaned up their act. The only saving grace is the area set aside for competition.
January 28, 2004, 02:10 AM
Guess that adequately answers my question about Blawkhawk. I've shot several matches out there and liked the range but never used the target shooting areas so I didn't realize they had safety issues. Thanks for the heads up.
January 28, 2004, 08:00 AM
Thanks folks. Headed for the airport with a printout in hand.
El Tejon
January 28, 2004, 08:15 AM
The women along the Riverwalk. I find the Zuni Grill to be a "must see.":D
Mad Dog's, that elevated place in a corner along the Riverwalk, is a good place to watch women and they have Fat Tire on draft.
January 28, 2004, 11:11 AM
Texas Tactical will be putting on an IDPA Match
this Sunday February 1st at the Blackhawk range
in San Antonio. The weather should be fantastic,
so come out and shoot in the great weather! Bring a friend or two!
Date: Sunday, February 1st, 2004
Time: 9:30AM
Shotgun Sidestage after the match. (birdshot only)
Texas Tactical holds an IDPA Match the 1st Sunday
of every month at the BLACKHAWK range in San
Antonio, Texas. The match is open
to all safe shooters of all ages and skill
levels. New shooters, please sign up no later
than 9:30am for a new shooter orientation. For
map and directions check out our website:
Hope to see y'all there. When you come into the
range and cross over the dam turn left and sign
up will be on the 3rd bay on the right.
If you enjoyed reading about "Any San Antonio Mus See?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


text:
On accepting the Frankfurt Goethe Prize of 1973, Arno Schmidt lamented that German Fascism and the Second World War had encumbered an entire generation of German writers with the specter of "too late". In particular, he saw himself as having been cheated out of many years of literary productivity. Indeed, Schmidt was already 35 years old before Leviathan [Leviathan], his first publication, a volume containing the stories Leviathan or The Best of Worlds, Enthymesis, and Gadir, appeared in 1949. Written during October 1946, the title story Leviathan comprises a mere 21 pages in the Bargfeld Edition of the collected works of Arno Schmidt. Yet Leviathan in its brevity is …
Please log in to consult the article in its entirety. If you are a member (student of staff) of a subscribing institution (see List), you should be able to access the LE on campus directly (without the need to log in), and off-campus either via the institutional log in we offer, or via your institution's remote access facilities, or by creating a personal user account with your institutional email address. If you are not a member of a subscribing institution, you will need to purchase a personal subscription. For more information on how to subscribe as an individual user, please see under Individual Subcriptions.
Menke, Timm. "Leviathan". The Literary Encyclopedia. First published 03 September 2012
[http://www.litencyc.com/php/sworks.php?rec=true&UID=28119, accessed 30 September 2016.]

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Are you looking for a top notch lawyer in Long Island, New York? Look no further!
Often times people hire lawyers for a wide variety of reasons that require a wide variety of specialized skill sets, which we provide. Whether it's a DUI charge or other criminal charge, a divorce, tax issues, business deals gone wrong, or other lawsuits, you need someone to stand up for you during these tough times.
Why hire us?
Lawyers come in all shapes and sizes, and one size doesn't always fit all. That's why our law firm consists of a wide variety of specialized lawyers to suit your specific needs. Just because someone is a licensed attorney does not mean that they know what they're doing, which is why we'll hand select the best match for your specific case.
Here are some of the cases that we can help you with:
- Personal Injury -- if you've been injured whether it be at work, in a car accident, etc., you have rights to proper medical care and in several cases, compensation. If you feel that you haven't received your rights here, our team of lawyers in Long Island can help you get what you deserve.
- Business Law -- whether you're looking for a lawyer to review a contract, make a new one, or fit a business deal gone wrong, you need a lawyer that specializes in business law. We have the best lawyers for your needs here.
- Bankruptcy Lawyer -- coming across hard times lately? Even if you've been 100% responsible with your spending and debt, you can still run into trouble. And sometimes your best bet is to file bankruptcy. Whether you have questions to see if this would be the best case for you, or you're looking to hire a bankruptcy lawyer, we can do all that for you with ease.
- Divorce Lawyer -- divorces are never easy, but they can be a lot worse if you don't have the right attorney backing you up! Some divorce lawyers take the easy road by charging you a fortune without getting you any positive results. We go the extra mile and fight for your rights to make sure that you get the best deal possible from years of experience.
Click Here to Contact Us for a FREE Consultation!
We Guarantee to Have the Most Affordable Rates for Our Level of Experience and Service!
E-mail Us at firstname.lastname@example.com with Any Questions or call us at 1-800-Get-Lawyer!


text:
Early College
The Early College Program (Dual Enrollment/Early Admission) at State College of Florida, Manatee-Sarasota (SCF) allows qualified high school students to enroll in selected college courses to satisfy high school graduation requirements and the associate degree. In accordance with s. 1009.25, F.S., the College does not charge dual enrollment and early admission students tuition and certain fees.
Dual Enrollment enables qualified public, private, and home education students from 6th to 12th grade to enroll in selected college and vocational credit courses offered by SCF. The credits that they earn count toward both a college degree or certificate and a high school diploma.
- Early Admission is a form of dual enrollment that enables qualified 12th grade high school students to spend their senior year enrolled at SCF. Students accepted for Early Admission take all their classes at SCF and must register for at least four classes totaling 12 or more credit hours. Credits count toward a high school diploma and an associate degree. Students in the Two-Year Collegiate High School Program have the opportunity to complete the requirements for the A.A. Degree by high school graduation through Early Admission. However, they must meet the early admission eligibility criteria and complete the application process to participate in the program.
Fall 2016 Deadline—June 17, 2016
Spring 2017 Deadline—December 2, 2016
Summer 2017/Fall 2017 Deadline –May 19, 2017


text:
Collection Tending the Commons: Folklife and Landscape in Southern West Virginia
Featured Content
- Ginseng laid out to air dry.
- Ramp bottoms, in the summer after the leaves have dried.
- Morning mist rising from the coves.
- Richard C. Hutchens at the Upper Big Branch Mine
- Aerial view of Coal River Valley, following Route 3.
- The confluence of Peachtree Creek and Drews Creek.
- Aerial view of Mountaintop Removal, approaching Racine.
- Ray Dickens, Jr. (Left), Kimberly Dickens, and Jeffrey Honaker ...
- Woody Boggs's ramp patch.
- Frying potatoes for the 1995 Ramp Supper on Drews Creek.
- Ray Cottrell and Randy Sprouse (in hat) seine for hellgrammites ...
- Vivian Jarrell's canned goods, produced from her garden, ...
- Mae Bongalis strings beans for drying. The dried beans are ...
- Coal cleaning plant as viewed from the sludge dam. The pond is ...
- Mary Hufford interviewing Everett Lilly.
- Joe Williams digging a ginseng root with his "seng" hoe. The ...
Results: 1-1 of 1 | Refined by: Part of: Tending the Commons: Folklife and Landscape in Southern West Virginia Remove Location: Kayford Mountain Remove Contributor: Holstein, Dottie Remove Location: Dorothy Remove
Photos, Prints, Drawing
Mary Hufford interviewing former residents of Kayford Mountain assembled for Memorial Day Celebration
- Contributor: Hufford, Mary - Fraker, Red - Holstein, Dottie - Holstein, Roosevelt "rosie" - Fraker, Barbara - Eiler, Terry
- Date: 1996-05-00


text:
Atrium Medical Center (Atrium) wants you to be aware of your rights and responsibilities as a patient.
The Atrium Patient Bill of Rights is designed to protect you, the patient.
Patient Rights and Responsibilities
This Atrium Patient Privacy Notice describes how your medical information may be disclosed and how you can access your information.
Atrium Patient Privacy Notice
Content Updated: June 4, 2015
Premier MyChart:
Help Us Touch Lives:


text:
RIPON - The Ripon Christian Knights ceremoniously cut down the nets Friday after their 63-17 trouncing over Gustine.
For the first time in school history the Lathrop High boys basketball team is heading to the postseason ,and the squad is not backing into its first playoff matchup after handling Kimball in 68-54 Valley Oak League Friday.
RIPON - The Knights may not have been at their best Thursday against Gustine.
Just one night after blowing a shot at earning at least a share of its first Valley Oak League championship, Weston Ranch's girls basketball team still had reason to play with purpose in the regular-season finale at Sierra Thursday.
After a dismal offensive showing in the first half from Manteca, the Buffaloes' woes continued in the third and helped East Union to a one-sided 57-31 Valley Oak League win over the host Buffaloes Thursday at Dalben Center.
Senior night can lead to some quirky lineups.
WESTON RANCH – Playing for at least a portion of the Valley Oak League title seemed to be on the mind of only one team, as East Union built a double-digit halftime lead and never relinquished in a 57-48 win over Weston Ranch Wednesday.
Two sophomores stole the show on the Manteca High girls basketball team's senior night Wednesday.
Lathrop High's girls basketball stretched its winning streak against Oakdale to four games after trouncing the Mustangs on their home floor 53-33 on Wednesday.
It's safe to say that at 5 feet, 8 inches, Scott Thomason didn't play above the rim during his days as a player.
East Union High continued to play inspired basketball.
Ripon High's girls basketball team suffered a third heartbreaking straight loss Tuesday, falling at Riverbank, 51-49.
RIPON – Riverbank High is definitely not accustomed to playing subpar basketball, but the Bruins' opening effort coupled with an inspired effort from Ripon left them coping with only its third loss of the season, 58-48.
Things were business as usual for the Ripon Christian Knights, as they continued their dominance over the Southern League with a 78-52 win over Delhi Tuesday.
It's net-cutting week for area basketball teams zeroing in on league championships, while others are looking to improve their postseason standing.
Page 226 of 387
STOCKTON - Weston Ranch got Manteca's attention by taking the second set, but the Buffaloes got back on track with a dominant third en route ...
There was no quit in the East Union and Lathrop volleyball teams Monday at Dalben Center, where the two clubs were engaged in a nip-and-tuck ...
MODESTO – The Sierra boys finished second and the Timberwolves girls were fifth Saturday in the 10th Annual Sierra Cross Country Invitational at Legion-Tuolumne Regional Park ...
RIPON - Natalie Cowan was low medalist for a second straight day, carding a 2-over 33 in East Union's 218-326 win over host Lathrop at ...
Sierra officially introduced itself as a contender in what is expected to be a wide-open race for the Valley Oak League title.
LATHROP - Lathrop has two more chances before the start of Valley Oak League play to get the first win under first-year coach Heather Anderson, but ...
Natalie Cowan shot 8-over 45 on Manteca Park Golf Course's front nine, leading East Union's 274-298 win over Sierra on Tuesday.
Emma Broderick couldn't pass up the chance to attend what she called her "dream college."
STOCKTON - In dire need of a new volleyball coach, it turned out Weston Ranch athletic director Craig Bingham didn't need to search far to ...
East Union's nine-year run as Valley Oak League champion in girls golf may be in jeopardy.
Often described as "old school," Joe Miller was a no-nonsense leader who expected the best effort from his players on the field and beyond it.
Page 3 of 3
Contents of this site are © 2016 Manteca Bulletin - All Rights Reserved
Privacy policy and Terms of service | Contact Us


text: Saw this, thought I would spread the word: ----------------------------------------------- http://www.chattanoogan.com/Classifieds/?ListingID=73926 3D Printer MakerFarm 8" i3 The world of 3d printing, being able to print almost anything you can think of, with tons of free support, information through blogs. This is a personal 3d printer that is well reviewed. Technical information: Configured with .40mm Magma hothead for 3mm ABS filament, Greg's extruder, heat bed, LED lighting, LCD display (for printing without PC), 8"x8"x7.25" build envelope, RAMPS 1.4 electronics, 50 micron later height. Open source software can be used (such as Pronterface and Sli3r) to operate printer. Willing to deliver depending on distance for an extra fee. Call 256/302-1378 Stephen


text:
Companies May Be Wasting Millions on CSR Initiatives: Many of the world's 100 most reputable companies have little to show for the millions of dollars they spend on Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives, according to the Reputation Institute's 2012 CSR RepTrak 100 Study.
The study says 60% of the 47,000 respondents across the 15 markets were unsure if companies are good corporate citizens that support good causes and protect the environment; 4% said they believe that companies could absolutely not be trusted.
The study confirms that companies that make reputation management and CSR a driving force in their business strategy realize results. For example, a five-point increase in a CSR rating would result in a 9.1% rise in the number of people who would definitely recommend a company. Other findings include:
Microsoft has the best reputation for CSR in the world according to the study, followed byGoogle, The Walt Disney Co., BMW, Apple, Daimler, VW, SONY, LEGO and Colgate-Palmolive
54% of respondents agree that Microsoft is a responsibly run company earning it the top spot for Governance
Only 6% perceive the Top 100 companies as good corporate citizens
17% definitely trust what companies promise in their advertising and marketing communications
18% trust what companies say in official reports
Source: Reputation Institute
Follow Scott Van Camp: @svancamp01


text:
View a list of all the Partner Agencies who work with the food bank - enter your Zip Code and press "Go".
Thanks for your interest in becoming a Weld Food Bank agency! We look forward to helping you in your work by providing the various food products we receive for your use.
In case you are not familiar with our program, here is a summary of our work: Weld Food Bank receives food from a variety of sources, including local, regional and national food producers. We also collect food from businesses that cannot sell the food for various reasons (cosmetic reasons, overstock, discontinued product, mislabeled product, etc.). We then distribute this food to non-profit organizations that serve people in need.
Weld Food Bank operates on a membership basis. All participating agencies must complete the application. In addition, we need verification of non-profit status in the form of a copy of your Letter of Determination from the Internal Revenue Service which indicates your agency's non-profit status under the 501(c)3 code. We also need a copy of a safe food handling certificate for at least one member of your agency. Weld Star and Serve Safe certificates are acceptable.
Once we receive your application and you complete our information packet, we will make arrangements to visit your agency to inspect your program's food storage facilities and share further information about our shopping process. Membership cards, which must be presented on each visit in order to shop, will be issued to each of your shoppers.
Please allow 2-4 weeks for the processing of your application.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Tina Danley at (970) 356-2199 x302.
Complete this form to send this page to a friend.
Manage your e-mail subscription
Watch this video and see how agencies and the food bank work together in our community.
Weld Food Bank
1108 H Street
Greeley, CO 80631
Get Involved
About Us
Contact Us


text: NWHikers.net - View topic - Bizarre Visual Distortion of Cascade Peaks Shop FAQ Search Members / Pics Login Register Active Topics Min 1 Week Min 1 Month Trail Talk Partners Trip Report Steward/History Gear/Food/Photo Support/Links Saloon/Trade Forum Index -> Trail Talk -> Bizarre Visual Distortion of Cascade Peaks Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Previous :: Next Topic Author Message MattTea, Earl Grey, HotJoined: 29 Jan 2007Posts: 3941 | TRs | PicsLocation: Shoreline Sat Dec 03, 2011 10:51 pm This afternoon, seven of us were on Sister Divide (near Mt. Baker) looking south at the line of Mountain Loop Highway peaks stretching west from Glacier Peak. We all could see bizarre columns rising from the tops of the peaks, and other peaks squared off into giant flat-topped blocks. We guessed it was some kind of refractory effect due to the inversion with exceptional high pressure air aloft, causing some kind of reflection off the boundary layer. These photos are blown up from smaller camera images (sorry about them being so grainy), so you probably need to look at the full-size version rather than the thumbnails to see the details. 11:58am12:15pm12:36pm--------------As beacons mountains burned at evening. J.R.R. Tolkien Back to top HulksmashCleaning up.Joined: 20 Apr 2008Posts: 7105 | TRs | PicsLocation: Arlington Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:00 pm That is freaking weird. Wonder what that would look like in video?--------------"Bears couldn't care less about us....we smell bad and don't taste too good. Bugs on the other hand see us as vending machines." - WetDog Albuterol! it's the 11th essential Back to top NikonHikerMemberJoined: 14 Aug 2007Posts: 593 | TRs | PicsLocation: Fort Drum, NY Sat Dec 03, 2011 11:05 pm I've run into that before too. It is bizarre and frustrating as all get out when you're going for that natural mountain skyline look. Back to top jackchinookMemberJoined: 28 Jan 2004Posts: 639 | TRs | PicsLocation: Winthrop Sun Dec 04, 2011 12:19 am Cool stuff. I experienced that once over here while skiing at Loup Loup. Same thing - major inversion going one. The small peaks in the southern end of the Okanogan Range were looking like these huge, apocalyptic buttes, way taller and more massive than their actual size. It's near the top of my list of times I regret most not having a camera. Back to top ElvisShuffl'nJoined: 09 Jun 2004Posts: 1801 | TRs | PicsLocation: del Boca Vista Sun Dec 04, 2011 1:26 am I had the opposite problem earlier this week. My island was floating. levitation island Ok, actually I don't know if it's an island. Maybe it's a boat. Photo was taken from Deception Pass State Park by Cranberry Lk, looking Westish.--------------"Ill habits gather unseen degrees, as brooks make rivers, rivers run to seas." ~John Dryden My Trip List Back to top tamz0rMemberJoined: 20 Jul 2011Posts: 95 | TRs | PicsLocation: Yakima, WA Sun Dec 04, 2011 3:56 am Back to top tmatlackMemberJoined: 21 Aug 2007Posts: 2614 | TRs | Pics Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:27 am Very cool. Cradle of the Gods most intriguing!!! Sorry no photo, but one evening last year on Hwy. 9 east of Marysville a low deck of clouds was over the Olympic Mtn. crest and the setting sun was reflecting off that deck, and backlighting the Olympics into these ghostly, giant shapes. Had to pull over and verify what I was looking at and I drive that stretch all the time. Tom Back to top Mike CollinsMemberJoined: 18 Dec 2001Posts: 2426 | TRs | Pics Sun Dec 04, 2011 4:42 am It is the stuff of mirages. When temperature increases with height, as with yesterday's heat inversion, the image is displaced up from the object. The atmosphere acts as a lens rather than a mirror causing images to be refracted rather than reflected. The atmosphere will cause light to bend because of gradual variations in the index of refraction in it. The index of refraction depends on the temperature of the air and the amount of moisture in it. The stronger the temperature gradient (the greater the temperature change with distance) then the stronger the gradient of the index of refraction and thus more bending. If the temperature is the same everywhere in the atmosphere then light travels in a straight line. I am heading out this morning to poach the trough that you guys made in the snow. Maybe we will experience the same atmospheric phenomenon. Back to top MagellanBrutally HandsomeJoined: 26 Jul 2006Posts: 13027 | TRs | PicsLocation: Inexorable descent Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:14 am I have not seen that before. Thanks for sharing Matt. Back to top Hiker MamaMemberJoined: 25 Jun 2006Posts: 3166 | TRs | PicsLocation: Lynnwood Sun Dec 04, 2011 7:15 am Wow, that is so cool! I have a hard time wrapping my head around the science, but it's fun to look at anyway!--------------My hiking w/ kids site: www.thehikermama.com Back to top RumiDudeMarmota olympusJoined: 26 Jul 2009Posts: 1859 | TRs | PicsLocation: Port Angeles Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:28 am It's commonly called a superior mirage. And yes, it is because of the temp inversion. Rumi--------------Valhalla Outdoors Back to top gbMemberJoined: 01 Jul 2010Posts: 3809 | TRs | Pics Sun Dec 04, 2011 9:17 am Pretty strong inversion. Cool to get photos of that mirage. Many years ago on Mt. Baker I looked to the Olympics and saw peaks that were essentially upside down, narrow-based and wide on top. but no photo... Back to top mikeMemberJoined: 09 Jul 2004Posts: 5586 | TRs | PicsLocation: SJIsl Sun Dec 04, 2011 11:57 am See that here all the time over the water. Cruise ships sailing upside down in the air...--------------liberté, égalité, fraternité Back to top meandering WaMemberJoined: 25 Jun 2010Posts: 1515 | TRs | PicsLocation: Redmond Sun Dec 04, 2011 5:04 pm Cliff Mass talks about these effects in his book SUperior mirage = when warm, less dense aire is above cool, dense air near the surface, light waves are bent so that objects appear to be higher than they actually are. page 206 "The Weather of the Pacific Northwest" Mass I bet he would love a link to these pictures. These images are stunning and unique Back to top DonMemberJoined: 25 Apr 2005Posts: 2016 | TRs | PicsLocation: Fairwood, WA Sun Dec 04, 2011 8:42 pm I have never seen this before either. Thanks for sharing, Matt. And thanks for the explanation, Mike! I hope you succeed in your mission to witness this!-------------- Don Geyer Photography Photography Blog Back to top Display: All Posts1 Day7 Days2 Weeks1 Month3 Months6 Months1 Year Oldest FirstNewest First All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Forum Index -> Trail Talk -> Bizarre Visual Distortion of Cascade Peaks Goto page 1, 2, 3 Next Jump to: Trail TalkPartnersTrip ReportsStewardshipPacific NW HistoryGear TalkFood & GrubPhotography TalkSupport & FeedbackLinksFull Moon SaloonThe Trading Post You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum Search this topic: Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group Privacy Policy


text:
Newbie on board
Social Situations
General Gun Discussions
> Newbie on board
September 2, 2004, 01:48 PM
Hi everyone, I'm new to the board. A friend sent me this way saying i could get a lot of good info hear. And from what i have seen he was right.
If you enjoyed reading about "Newbie on board" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
September 2, 2004, 01:48 PM
Welcome :p
September 2, 2004, 02:05 PM
Welcome, you will fine lots of good info here.
R.H. Lee
September 2, 2004, 02:07 PM
Bienvenidos (that's Californian for "Welcome") :)
Tell us about your guns.
El Tejon
September 2, 2004, 02:15 PM
How do, neighbor!:)
Welcome to THR.
September 2, 2004, 02:27 PM
Welcome. Whatcha bring us from the outside? You have pictures? Show us pictures!! Preferably pictures of guns -- your guns. Pictures?!
Man, I have GOT to cut back on the caffeine.
September 2, 2004, 02:48 PM
Well i dont have any pics yet due to the fact that i dont have a digi cam yet LOL. As of right now i am sitting on a mossburg 590, and 2 Glock 23s. I am working on getting a S&W 357 ariLight ( i'm not sure if thats what its called ) I need something to carry for the really hot days when i will only be wearing a shirt and jeans.
erik the bold
September 2, 2004, 02:50 PM
Hey, another Michiganian newbee !! :D (WooHoo!)
Information and help here is fantastic.........Only it takes too much time away from work :p
Current fun toys:
.38 S&W (cirica 1940's)
.45 1911
20 ga Mossberg 500 combo
50 ca Traditions BP
12 ga Mossberg 835 (on the way)
September 2, 2004, 02:54 PM
LOL yup, but i get paid to do things that get done all by them self. :neener:
September 2, 2004, 02:58 PM
Where can I sign up for a job like that :p
erik the bold
September 2, 2004, 03:04 PM
Second that :what:
R.H. Lee
September 2, 2004, 03:16 PM
As of right now i am sitting on a mossburg 590, and 2 Glock 23sNot like this, I hope:
September 2, 2004, 03:18 PM
**** no way in a million years did i ever think that i would see a pic like that.
Mike Hull
September 2, 2004, 04:33 PM
September 2, 2004, 11:39 PM
Welcome darkmind
joe sixpack
September 2, 2004, 11:46 PM
Welcome to THR! Great place and people, enjoy.
cheers, ab
September 2, 2004, 11:53 PM
Welcome. :)
4v50 Gary
September 3, 2004, 01:02 AM
Welcome Darkmind.
If you enjoyed reading about "Newbie on board" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


text:
TV Roundup: Ashlee Not Busy on Saturday Night
• Saturday Night Live has reportedly turned down Ashlee Simpson for another appearance because producers thought she was "a pain." Look for next week's episode with host Joe Simpson and musical guest Fall Out Boy. (We kid, we kid! It's Christopher Walken and Panic at the Disco.)
• Miley Cyrus won two Nickelodeon Kids Choice Awards on Saturday – one for favorite female singer and one for favorite TV actress. "She'd be nothing without me," sniffed a bitter Hannah Montana.
• Team Meeps has been created to celebrate – like The Bachelor's Amanda – who suffer from chronic high-pitched hiccups. This is different from Team Peeps: who are addicted to the sugary marshmallow chicks.
• Deadwood actor Ian McShane will star as an "Old Testament-era monarch" in the new NBC drama Kings. Better start studying those ancient Hebrew swear words!
• Heather Mills will be a celebrity judge for the Miss USA pageant April 11th. Everyone else will continue to judge Mills, just for the fun of it.


text:
David Friedman on Social Justice and Utilitarianism
One of the themes in my recent conversation at Cato Unbound with David Friedman was whether utilitarianism or social justice is a better concept for thinking about the moral obligations we have to the poor. I recently continued that conversation on this blog with a short critique of utilitarianism. In that post, I wrote:
Some [advocates of utilitarianism] … are generally sympathetic to the idea of bleeding heart libertarianism, but think that utilitarianism does a better job explaining and defending its attractive qualities than do appeals to "social justice." Actually, even though he sounds less sympathetic, I think this is basically David Friedman's position too.
In the comments, David Friedman wrote a thoughtful and interesting response. Rather than allow it and my reaction to be buried in the comments thread, I thought I'd post both here.
First, David's comment:
Pretty close. I argued against the hard line natural rights position in the second edition of _The Machinery of Freedom_, published in 1989, so perhaps you should say that BHL's are generally sympathetic to my position?
But I find both halves of the "social justice" terminology unconvincing, and not only because it is terminology mostly used by the left. I'm not sure it makes any sense to offer a moral evaluation of the entire structure of a society, which is what I gather some of you mean by the "social" part. A society is, in Hayek's terminology, a self-generating order, not a deliberate construction, and I think moral evaluations are ultimately about the acts of individuals.
And I don't think all moral judgements are about justice. It may be a virtuous act for me to feed a hungry man even if he has no morally legitimate claim against me, hence my failing to do so is not unjust.
Further, insofar as you are going to put any content into your idea of social justice, I continue to find the idea of judging a society by how well off the worst off people (or some subset thereof) are unconvincing. It's a good thing to help badly off people get better off, but it's also a good thing to help people who are living pretty good lives to live much better lives—I don't see why one would want to make a distinction of kind between those two, which I think talk about social justice does.
Finally, going back to the historical issue and Adam Smith in particular, I don't think he was particularly sympathetic to the worst off people—as I pointed out in the Cato Unbound discussion, the poor he was talking about were the bulk of the population, and he explicitly justified his concern for them on that basis.
So far as the people at the very bottom, they show up in an interesting bit of his discussion of taxation. Smith thought tax burden should be proportional to income–that's the first of his maxims of taxation, although he is willing to bend it a little to accept taxes that don't fit if they have other desirable characteristics. He also thought that the wage level was largely determined by the cost of necessities, along the lines of what is sometimes called the iron law of wages. He concluded that taxing the necessities of the poor was wrong, not because it burdened them but because it didn't–such a tax would result in a rise in wages, and so be passed on to the not poor.
His conclusion was that the poor (meaning the working class) should be taxed by taxing their luxuries. That wouldn't reduce the laboring population and drive up wages, because the bulk of the poor were responsible sorts who would respond by reducing their consumption of luxuries.
What about the irresponsible poor? Things would go badly for them and their kids, but that wasn't a big problem, because weren't very useful people anyway:
"If by the strength of their constitution they survive the hardships to which the bad conduct of their parents exposes them, yet the example of that bad conduct commonly corrupts their morals, so that, instead of being useful to society by their industry, they become public nuisances by their vices and disorders. Though the advanced price of the luxuries of the poor, therefore, might increase somewhat the distress of such disorderly families, and thereby diminish somewhat their ability to bring up children, it would not probably diminish much the useful population of the country."
I don't think Rawls would approve.
David touches on a number of points worth addressing, so let me take them in turn.
First, I think it's absolutely true that BHL (or at least this BHL) is generally sympathetic to the position David sets out in The Machinery of Freedom. The appendix to that book was one of the first things I read that started moving me away from the kind of Randian natural rights position that first attracted me to libertarianism. And I heartily agree with and endorse much of what David says in the main body of the book as well. Perhaps it's easy to overlook with all the intra-libertarian disputes we've been having about the importance of social justice, but bleeding heart libertarians are, after all, libertarians. And we find much of the canonical libertarian analysis of social and economic issues pretty convincing.
So what about the standard (Hayekian/Nozickian) critique of social justice? Like David, I take this seriously, and think that it is important to recognize the ways in which social institutions are spontaneous orders, and the way in which this fact undermines certain kinds of moral critique. But, perhaps unlike David, I'm not convinced that this prevents us from making any moral evaluations of social institutions, and specifically not the kinds of evaluations on which arguments about social justice depend. After all, even if certain social institutions are spontaneous in their origin it is still within our power to change them in certain ways, and it's that possibility (the "can") that makes moral judgements ("oughts") possible and relevant. I've addressed this issue in somewhat more detail in this blog post.
David says that not all moral judgments are about justice. I agree, and would go further. Not all moral judgments are about justice, and not all judgments about justice are about social justice. Regarding the first of those claims, I think that sometimes it would be virtuous of me to aid another person, but not obligatory. But I do believe that there are other cases in which it would be obligatory, not merely supererogatory. Easy rescue cases of the sort I discussed here, for instance. I'd be curious to hear David's take on these. Regarding the second claim, if we take social justice to be a claim about distributive justice, then it's important to remember that even for Rawls distributive justice is not the whole of justice. Forcibly transplanting eyes from the sighted to the blind is impermissible on Rawlsian grounds due to the lexical priority of the first principle of justice over the second. And something like this seems eminently reasonable. Even if we don't grant basic liberties against involuntary servitude and other forms of physical coercion as in all cases lexically prior to considerations of distributive justice, they are at least valid considerations of justice that need to be taken into account alongside of considerations of social justice in order to form an all-things-considered judgment of what justice requires.
Finally, I want to turn to David's comments on Adam Smith. David says that "the poor [Smith] was talking about were the bulk of the population, and he explicitly justified his concern for them on that basis." To me, this suggests an ambiguity between comparative and non-comparative senses of term "poor." In a comparative sense, only a minority of the population can be poor – roughly 50% will be richer than average, and 50% poorer than average. In a noncomparative sense of the term, however, it's possible that everyone will be poor, and it's possible that no one will be poor. Prioritarian moral theories tend to focus on "the poor" in the comparative sense, while sufficientarian theories focus on the noncomparatively poor. My own view, at least as far as I've worked it out, is something like a hybrid of prioritarianism and sufficientarianism: The welfare of people who fall below a certain threshold have a certain but not absolute priority in considerations of distributive justice. (The worst-off people in a society where everyone is above the threshold of sufficiency, by contrast, would have no such claim).
Now, David's discussion of Smith might suggest that he was concerned not with "the poor" at all, but whatever affected the bulk of the population. Or it might suggest that he was concerned with the poor in a noncomparative sense. On that latter interpretation, Smith was troubled by the fact that policies hurt the poor, and this was aggravated by the fact that the poor constituted the bulk of the population. Both of these interpretations seem reasonable extrapolations form the quote David provided, and I don't know that anything Smith says elsewhere in his corpus will help to decide between them.
As for Smith's harsh-sounding comments, I think we have to be a little careful here. Even BHLs like me who think that the needs of the poor have a special moral claim on us as a society still face a big problem about what to do about that segment of the poor that is genuinely lazy, irresponsible, imprudent, etc. Actually, we face two big problems. The first is the old problem of moral hazard. Every time we lower the cost of bad decisions, we make it more likely that people will make those decisions. And this means that even if our goal is to help the poor, it does not follow that we should do everything we can to keep them from suffering right here and right now. Anyone who is a parent is familiar with the tension between helping your child learn the lessons she needs in order to develop into a responsible, independent adult, and protecting her from unnecessary pain. This is something we need to keep in mind if classical liberals like Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer sometimes sound uncaring.
The second and deeper problem is reconciling our belief in an obligation to the poor with a belief in personal responsibility. I, for one, do not think the mere fact that one is poor is sufficient to give one a claim against others. If the reason one is poor is that one has freely made bad choices, or freely taken reasonable gambles that didn't pay off, then one's claim on others for relief is at least greatly diminished if not eliminated entirely. Personal responsibility and individual choice matters. This is a crucial insight of much conservative/libertarian thought, and not one that BHLs should abandon. Indeed, this is an issue on which conservative/libertarian theorists are winning. John Rawls in Theory of Justice wrote in a way that seemed notoriously dismissive of personal responsibility, claiming that the a social structure that generates inequalities cannot be based on moral claims about personal desert, since after all our characters are largely the product of genetic and environmental circumstances over which we have no control. But later egalitarian theorists have not followed Rawls in this respect, and for good reason. On this issue, BHLs would do better to ditch Rawls and follow instead theorists like Richard Arneson, who take seriously the value of personal responsibility and the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor to which it gives rise.
How can judgments about the deserving and undeserving poor not be essentially paternalistic? The conservative moralism of this sort of rhetoric disturbs me, in a way that it seems as if it should disturb BHLs. IIRC, it has disturbed some BHLs on this site (Jessica Flanagan specifically, I believe).
The social darwinism/social hygiene and moral perfectionism implicit in these sorts of moral hazard concerns are odious. But insofar as this is where libertarianism is in cahoots with social conservatism, that makes sense, I guess.
I'm not so sure. In general, if we refuse to give reward R to person X because X hasn't done what it takes to deserve it, this isn't paternalistic. I don't see why it's necessarily different if we're talking about the deserving and undeserving poor. Paternalism seems to necessarily involve restricting a person or withholding something from them for their own good. If one's rationale for withholding assistance is that the person hasn't done what it takes to deserve it, that might be objectionable in some way. But not because it's paternalistic.
If, however, one withholds assistance from a person not because they are intrinsically undeserving but because you believe the assistance will do more harm than good to them, then yes I suppose that is paternalistic. But it's not clear to me that that is a decisive reason to reject the policy. If government is going to be in the business of helping people, then shouldn't it also be in the business of trying to ensure that its help is effective rather than destructive? We expect – demand! – that parents be paternalistic toward their children. If someone is made a "ward of the state," should not the state act paternalisticaly toward them, for similar reasons?
And don't even get me started on social darwinism.
" It's a good thing to help badly off people get better off, but it's also a good thing to help people who are living pretty good lives to live much better lives—I don't see why one would want to make a distinction of kind between those two, which I think talk about social justice does."
This strikes me as in need of attention. I DO think that it is more pertinent to help the worse off get better off than the better off get even better off. This, because of something like a point of diminishing returns; roughly, I think there is a big difference between helping those who are at risk of starving or becoming homeless gain food or housing and helping those who have modest food and shelter gain more food or larger shelter. In the former case, NOT helping has more serious consequences than in the latter cases, and the difference between, say, starving and not starving is weightier than the difference between having enough food for survival and having enough food to be comfortably full.
In plain language, I suppose dI see a distinction between the two cases because the worst off will experience worse consequences as a result of our refusal to help than will those who are "living pretty good lives" already.
"…for them and their kids…"
I think that's the crux of the issue. If you consider children the property of their parents then who gives a crap how many of them starve, how many of them never get an education, how many of them are born into slavery because their parents were slaves, etc?
If you're a libertarian, however, that boat won't float: a child is not the property of anyone else. And consequently, contrary to some of the Victorian (and conservative, and hard-Libertarian) philosophies, the potential starvation or death by (otherwise affordably treatable) illness of a child is not a "goad" to the parents efforts and a whip should they not succeed. The starvation of a poor persons child instead is the death of a citizen no less and no more significant than any other citizen.
It gets even more real if the child does not starve or die of illness but only grows up undernourished, injured, uneducated, and otherwise incapable of full participation in public life (I won't say "social" because I know some libertarians refuse to believe such a thing as society is possible because there are only collections of individuals and thus there can be no such thing as groups.)
And if through public negligence a child who might otherwise have borne the weight of the public becomes instead a burden on the public. Rinse and repeat.
Note: the metric of whether someone's child is "their kid" or not, and
whether the consequences are the parent's responsibility, burden, or
whatever, or not, is what happens to the parent when the child turns
18. Or, a little further out, when the parent dies of old age. At some
point they stop being the parent's "wages of sin" and become the wages
of whoever has to pay in either money, time, property for prisons or
gallows, or charity. Usually, incidentally, the somebody is their peers, i.e. our children.
Anyway, it's rather jarring to see someone a) claim to be a libertarian and b) claim that citizen groupings are an invalid construct who c) nevertheless can utter a sentence like "for them and their kids."
If children weren't a reservoir of future adults instead of the private property of parents then agitation for social justice wouldn't be very compelling at all.
As I've said before, I don't care if people want to call something that walks like a social justice and quacks like social justice "Utilitarianism" because they don't believe in social justice. As long as the net results are produced people can call it call it whatever they like.
There's also the argument that putting too much effort into figuring out who is deserving versus undeserving is a huge waste of time (hence money) as well as an invasion of privacy. It's usually simpler and cheaper not to bother.
Anyway, it's rather jarring to see someone a) claim to be a libertarian
and b) claim that citizen groupings are an invalid construct who c)
nevertheless can utter a sentence like "for them and their kids."
I'm not sure who you meant to address here. The offending language comes from David's comment, but the way I read him he was interpreting Smith, rather than stating his own position.
At any rate, I don't think most people, David included, who use the phrase "for them and their kids" mean to imply anything like that children are the property of their parents. My children are my children in the sense that I fathered them and I (along with my wife) bear the primary responsibility for raising them. Calling them mine doesn't imply that I think I can do whatever I want with them.
But all that aside, you raise a serious and valid concern. Even if some people don't deserve our assistance because their misfortune is the result of their own free choices, their children have done nothing to deserve their fate. And so if we were to deny all assistance to the parent, we would in a sense be punishing the child for the sins of his father. And that seems deeply unfair and inhumane.
So far, I'm entirely on board. This is a serious problem. The hard problem is to figure out what lesson we should draw from this. Is it that the distinction between the deserving and the undeserving poor should play no role in considerations of social policy? Maybe, but I'd need to see a few extra argumentative steps to convince me of this. Perhaps the answer is complicated. Perhaps we decide as a society that no child should ever, ever starve because his parents are too irresponsible to feed him. Perhaps we accomplish that by providing the parents with food stamps; perhaps we accomplish it by taking children away from parents whose behavior threatens to starve them. Even so, we might tolerate (indeed, I think we must tolerate) children having worse life prospects, and worse childhoods, because their parents have behaved irresponsible. There's a difference between starving and not getting a very good education, not living in a very nice home, etc.
I don't really have any settled answers here. It's a tough issue.
"…the way I read him he was interpreting Smith, rather than stating his own position."
Same. I wasn't accusing David, just the attitude. I was just going off on what's probably the biggest unstated factor in the BHL vs conservatarian social-justice debate: in any given society up to 50% of the population is neither deserving nor undeserving but nevertheless dependent on the health, wealth, and attitude of people they're literally assigned to sight unseen. For between roughly 30% to 15% of their entire lives. (If things turn out well. 100% of their lives if not!)
It seems like a pure social-justice play to say every new human deserves an even shot — something even Milton Freedman acknowledged. But it also seems like from a pure utilitarian perspective it's possible to make a calculation on behalf of one's own children that helping the children of others (even "undeserving" others) to become at least ordinary citizens rather than burdens when their generation takes up the reins of the world.
Because, again, pretty much by definition if an "undeserving" parent doesn't give much of a crap what happens to their children before they turn 18 they're sure not going to give them much though after they turn 18. But in actuarial terms for the next 40-60 years not only we but everyone else's children are going to have to deal with them.
So I guess what I'm saying is that it's not like social justice is a one-way street. Nor is it necessary to be a closet (non-"classical") liberal to be a BHL.
Hi Matt,
#1. You say: "Perhaps it's easy to overlook with all the intra-libertarian disputes we've been having about the importance of social justice, but bleeding heart libertarians are, after all, libertarians (your emphasis). I don't mean to quibble, but I have heard you and other BHLs repeatedly descrbe yourselves as "classical liberals." Do you now believe these terms can be used interchangeably?
#2. I believe that "justice" and "social justice" are extensionally identical, such that a society's basic structure cannot be "just" without also being "socially just," and vice versa. Do you agree? So, based on this and other posts, I am assuming that the latter term is used to describe a feature or characteristic that a social system must have in order to be "just." But I believe that the BHLs would agree that for the basic structure of a society to be just it must satisfy a number of other tests as well, including (without limittaion) equal respect for all persons, equal opportunity, and the enforcement of a fairly stringent set of rights, including to property–and these features may conflict with the demands of social justice.
So, unless you are going to argue that "social justice" always takes priority over (or "trumps") all these other requirements of justice, it seems misleading to focus on it, since trade-offs with other values might cause us to forgo "social justice" in certain cases. Why not focus on whether a system satisfies all the dimensions of justice, i.e. whather it is "just" (full stop). What, if anything, is so special about social justice?
Briefly, since I'm heading out the door…
1) It depends on the context. I sometimes use the term libertarian in a broad sense to encompass anarcho-capitalists, minimal-statists, and classical liberals, when the distinction between them isn't as important for my purposes as much as the distinction between all these groups and other families of political theory.
2) I don't believe that they are extensionally identical, but I do think that a society cannot be fully just unless it meets the requirements of social justice. So social justice is an important part of justice, and I focus on it because I believe it is a part of justice unjustly (hah!) neglected by many libertarians.
Thanks. Perhaps, when yo0u get a chance, you can describe a case where "justice" and "social justice" are not extensionally identical.
Sure. Since as Kevin and others here have said, social justice is something that applies to the basic institutions of society, then most questions of micro-level interpersonal conduct will not involve issues of social justice, even if they will involve issues of justice: e.g., my stealing your wallet.
Fair enough, but that was not really my question. With respect to the basic institutions, are the term extensionally identical? With respect to the system, can it be "just" w/o also being "socially just" and vice versa?
No it can't be just without being socially just, for reasons I've already explained (social justice is a part of justice). Yes it can meet the requirements of social justice without fully meeting the requirements of justice. Take the definition Jason gave here (http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2012/04/zeroing-in-on-social-justice/). A society can satisfy this while being unjust in other ways. So the two are not extensionally equivalent.
Bleeding Heart Libertarianism, for Matt, actually does in some way overlap with Social Conservatism? And this includes a notion of "the deserving poor" under meritocratic assumptions? *cringe*
A big part of the problem with such a socially conservative narrative is the presumption of natural meritocracy imposed onto social phenomena that is actually heavily affected by institutions, and assigns dubious moral weight to people on the basis of their failure to sucessfully play the game of those institutions.
So it's not paternalism if we do it? Only if it's done to us?
"Bleeding Heart Libertarianism, for Matt, actually does in some way explicitly and proudly overlap with Social Conservatism?"
I was reading a piece on the Googly Interwebs somewhere about a book that just came out on the recent psych research into political orientations and basic psych profiles that influence/determine that sort of thing. Basically, conservatives value order and tradition, liberals value novelty and experimentation; cons have neat workplaces, liberals have messy ones; etc.
I was contemplating how libertarians fit into that narrative and initially, I thought they must be a whole 'nuther kind of beast; neither fish nor fowl. But the more I consider it the more it seems to me that libertarianism is firmly conservative in nature. The thinking is very categorical with little room for shades of grey.
Example (ripped from the headlines, so to speak): Abortion. Despite all the noise from certain quarters, polls show that most people (like 60-70%) are reasonably satisfied with the legal status quo. And that status quo reflects the inherent moral ambiguities of the situation. I consider it an inherently liberal (in the classical sense) solution. But my experience has been that libertarians will tend to come down totally on one side of the issue or the other. Either the woman's rights are the only things that count; so much so that some writers like Mises will even assert that there is no legally enforceable parental duty to care for children. Or, on the other hand, others, like Ron Paul, will come down on the side of "abortion is murder" and even deny exceptions for rape, incest, or maternal health like the most Jesus-y of Republicans. No middle ground, no ambiguity, no compromise allowed in either case. That, to me, is a fundamentally conservative mindset in either case.
Was the piece you were reading about Jonathan Haidt's newest book The Righteous Mind? Good book, if you are interested. And Haidt does talk about libertarians and how they tend to fit in on his scales.
"I was contemplating how libertarians fit into that narrative and initially, I thought they must be a whole 'nuther kind of beast; neither fish nor fowl. But the more I consider it the more it seems to me that libertarianism is firmly conservative in nature. The thinking is very categorical with little room for shades of grey. "
I think that largely depends on the libertarians. In fact, Haidt suggests that libertarians score about the same as liberals when talking about "order and tradition" versus "novelty and experimentation" (your words, not Haidt's).
So, you have the type of libertarians – like Hayek, Mises, and James Buchanan – who are really concerned with developing institutions that make possible some sort of "spontaneous order" where innovation and experimentatoin can take place relatively free of constraint. (Interestingly, Hayek wrote an article called "Why I am not a conservative" and Buchanan, a book called "Why I, too, am not a conservative.") And none of the three authors were very "categorical" in their thinking (even though Buchanan starts with pretty Kantian premises).
Then there is the type of libertarian, perhaps like Murray Rothbard, Ayn Rand, or Robert Nozick that may be a bit more "categorical" in their way of thinking, basing their libertarian philosophies on a fairly infexible conception of natural property rights.
Anyhow, a digression – but I do hope that you will, if you haven't, delve into Haidt and maybe some of the libertarians I mention that probably would have scored "liberal" on Haidt's surveys (when it comes to valuing novelty and experimentation."
Damien S.
I hate the new Disqus already. It somehow messes up my ability to search for text in the browser.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/02/the-science-of-libertarian discusses Haidt's research on libertarians, on the 5 foundations and others. Libertarians score as devaluing the original Big 5, valuing Liberty highly, being analytical, and they "score
high individualism, low on collectivism, and low on all other
traits that involved bonding with, loving, or feeling a sense of
common identity with others".
Yeah, I hate it too, and we don't agree on anything else.
Yeah, count me too in the group of the "Old Discus Conservatives".
Here there is an interesting review of Haidt's book:
Alex, these are all good questions. I think what they suggest is not that the distinction between the deserving and undeserving poor is unsound, but that the implications of such a distinction for social policy are quite unclear. You should take a look at Arneson's paper. I think you'd really like it. Here's the conclusion, with which I am quite sympathetic:
factors the make it easy or difficult, and more or less costly, for an
individual to
as she ought, are densely intertwined with aspects of her circumstances for which it is sensible
to hold her accountable. Sorting out these factors and deciding to what degree
an individual
is truly deserving can be hard, even intractable, even in a small-scale and
local context
that does not stretch out over time. "Judge not," says the Bible.
society might care a great deal about bringing it about that to the greatest
the good fortune that each individual enjoys is proportional to her true deservingness. Such
a society could set its institutions and practices giving top priority to this
aim. But this is very
definitely not the society we inhabit. The major institutions that distribute
good fortune are the
family and the market. Neither of these institutions is responsive to
individual deservingness.
Market prices are determined by supply and demand. The family distributes care
and concern according to ties of blood and marriage; as a parent I do not try
to determine which
children are more deserving and help them–I try to give my own children every advantage.
We could try to institute very different institutions that would attempt to
establish a republic
of virtue, a moralized meritocracy, in which people receive benefits according
to their fine-grained
deservingness. This would not be a crazy project, but it is hard to conceive
institutions must assume in order to make progress towards achieving it, and it
is clear that
any attempt to reform society in this way would leave us all far worse off in
material terms than
we are under current institutions.
question then arises, given that we don't in fact care enough about
deservingness to
the market and reshape the family in order to try to tailor individual good
fortune to individual
deservingness, why does this issue suddenly loom in importance when we are discussing
social welfare policies that address the alleviation of poverty? We blandly
tolerate such
facts as that Japanese language teachers earn more than Spanish language
teachers even
if both are equally deserving, because there is greater demand for instruction
in Japanese.
social values comparable in importance to market efficiency are at stake in
choices about social
welfare policy for the poor, why not forego the attempt to create a republic of
virtue in this one
domain? A pincer movement is formed by two considerations: (1) the massive
actual irrelevance
of fine-grained desert to the working of major institutions of our society, and
(2) the massive
difficulty of monitoring individuals' fine-grained deservingness scores even on
the assumption
that we could coherently and nonarbitrarily assign weights to the various dimensions
of deservingness so as to generate a single interpersonally comparable measure
of individuals'
overall desert. The pincers exerts pressure to forego the attempt to make the treatment
of individuals responsive to desert a major consideration in social welfare
policy directed
toward poverty relief. This decision to downplay deservingness results from
thinking through
its nature and implications rather than from ignoring it.
Three thoughts. First, if you subsidize irresponsible behavior, you will get more of it, and this also has negative implications for future generations, including the children of the irresponsible.
Second, it is wrong to coerce people, at least in the absence of weighty consideration that justify doing so. On the conception (roughly) of "justice as desert," forced redistribution in favor of the irresponsible does not pass this test. Righty, few people will willingly share their resources with the irresponsible, when there are deserving people in need. Therefore, we should attempt to funnel respources to the "innocent" needy.
One way NOT to do this is to assign the task of poverty alleviation to a massive, central bureaucracy, whose officials have no contact with the recipients of aid. Before the welfare state, the needy received help through fraternal organizations, mutual aid socities and religious institutions. They knew the folks they were dealing with, and with scarce resources in hand, would demand that those receiving aid took reasonable steps to find work. I suggest we go back to the future here, and allow private organizations to compete for the right to administer our tax dollars based on the effectiveness of their programs.
Finally, on the "cosmopolitan" conception of justice in vogue with the BHLs, virtually none of our taxpayer aid should go to domestic recipients, since their level of need cannot remotely compare to the needs of those starving to death or dying of easily preventable diseases in Africa and elsewhere. I disagree with this theory, but I think you should acknowledge it in the context of this discussion.
I don't really disagree with any of this.
Damien S.
"In a comparative sense, only a minority of the population can be poor –
roughly 50% will be richer than average, and 50% poorer than average."
Sure, if you assume a bell curve like distribution, and not a pyramid or power law one.
Say 50 people get $1/day, 25 people get $2/day, 24 people get $10/day, and 1 person gets $1000/day. 99% of the population will be below the mean average.
The problem I see is that you are trying to find the one single solution that accomplishes social justice. It can't be done, Matt, because people just don't agree on what that is. What one person views as social justice another views as injustice. I think this has a lot to do with why Americans are so divided and are becoming more and more hostile to each other's views. We should agree to allow each person to act on their own conscience with regard to what they are going to do to help others that they have not harmed. That way the poor will be taken care of to the extent that other people view them as worthy of being taken care of and are willing to do so. I don't see a better solution that doesn't strike me as being the same mindset as religious fundamentalism. We might as well be trying to pick one religion to force on everyone.
Ah, the "everything else is unreasonable so just enforce my preferred ideology as the default" solution.
How exactly do you turn "allow each person to follow their own conscience" into "enforce my preferred ideology"? Your comment makes no sense at all. It sounds similar to the religious fundamentalist view that not being allowed to force others to follow their religion constitutes discrimination against their religion.
Because "allow each person to follow their own conscience" functions as a catch-phrase tied up with what are a bunch of other things in the web of the ideology – you have assumptions behind what that means and what is voluntary. Yea, people following their own conscience, in context, means "people having a right to be sociopathic" – because you're placing such a high value on individuals *not* having social obligations. Which is itself an ideological thing that can be disputed.
It's mighty convenient to present something ideologically loaded as the default position. The only real default position is to say nothing.
I see where you're coming from, Alex, but does it make much sense to say nothing if you think something wrong is being proposed?
Of course not. Just don't pass it off as the default position.
I'm not sure what you mean by passing it off as the default position. That's something good_in_theory came up with, not me. In my opinion, it's the most just and the most practical position.
I think an important component to measuring "social justice", even if we have trouble defining it, is to look at how many relatively poor folks a society produces. There are always going to be some people in any society that, for one reason or another, are going to be having a rough time of it. But if a society has a LOT of people in that situation then something bad is going on.
I think an important component to measuring "social justice", even if we have trouble defining it, is to look at how many relatively poor folks a society produces. "
Does society produce poor folks? I don't ask that in a sardonic way, but one question that the debate over "social justice" (whether in libertarian circles or not) is to what degree society "produces" poor folks. I think the question is important because it helps get at what idea of dessert we are basing "social justice" on. If I produce a broken leg in you, I think it is clear that I bear responsibility for remedying that situation (particularly if I produce it deliberately, but also if I produce it from negligence). But in what sense can we say "society produces poor people"? First, who exactly produced the poor person (or the poverty that the person has)? Did they do so deliberately or through negligence (or neither)?
My mind is not quite made up on the idea of social justice simply because it is difficult for me to see how "society produces poor people" because (a) society is not an entity but a collection of many people pursuing their own individual projects, and (b) as such, it is really hard for me to see how society's members can collectively be held responsible for "producing" poor people.
This is why I tire of talking to libbies at times; it just gets tedious. By "society" I'm talking about the institutions, laws, rules, regulations, customs, norms, etc. that the individuals live, act, and participate in. Even an anarchist society will have at least some of these things.
Hmmm. Interesting question.
I don't think this will be a controversial proposition but let see. Assume five different type of society can exist. Let's run 5 experiments with the same population and see if the same people end up in the same economic position. (We can adjust this to say run 5000 experiments, 1000 for each society to get some "average").
If we see that certain types of people are more and less successful in the different societies doesn't that suggest that social structure will "produce poor people".
I suppose one can reject the above hypothesis but if one does, what assumptions about human nature is one making. Additionally, would those assumptions be consistent with arguments such as Hayek makes about who is attracted to positions of power in a centrally planned society?
I don't know if Rawls was influenced by Henry George's "Progress and Poverty," but they both seem to be concerned about the same thing: Why is poverty co-arising with progress? And if so, is it really progress?
Posts by Guest Authors
- Brink Lindsey
- Charles Johnson
- Christopher Morris
- David Gordon
- David Schmidtz
- Deirdre McCloskey
- Elizabeth Anderson
- Eric Mack
- Fred Foldvary
- Hillel Steiner
- John Holbo
- John Tomasi
- Kevin Carson
- Massimo Renzo
- Michael Huemer
- Michael Strong
- Peter Boettke
- Richard Arneson
- Samuel Freeman
- Will Wilkinson
- Zachary Gochenour
Our Books
Recent Comments


text:
11 Biggest Open Source Success Stories That is Changing The World As We Know It
According to Fortune, Open Source is slowly gaining acceptance in the corporate world. More and more corporates are beginning to see the merits of Open Source and have started embracing it. But all these changes didn't happened overnight. It was rather a painful journey. 'Sharing' was never a good thing for Corporates until recently. These changes were largely brought about by a string of Open Source success stories that happened over the years.
Comments are closed.
Copyright © 2016 FreeSoftNews - All Rights Reserved


text:
"She is the most competitive player I have ever coached."
That is what Lakeview High School varsity girls basketball coach Adam Lewis stated about his standout junior guard Alli Pavlik. The journey to basketball greatness hasn't come easy for Pavlik. In fact, the journey almost never happened.
"In my freshman year I really didn't want to play," Pavlik said. "Then, I fell back in love with the game after playing in the summer leagues."
Her extensive workouts and the will to become better began last summer. Pavlik was motivated to improve her game after what former teammate Ali Gagne was able to accomplish during her senior season in 2011-2012.
"Ali (Gagne) was a big part of our team. Everyone looked at our team and thought of her," Pavlik said. "When other teams doubled teamed her, it was my time to shine. When I was able to step up in those games, it gave me encouragement for next year, thinking, 'Maybe I can be where she's at right now.' "
During the summer, Pavlik and her younger sister Abby, the starting point guard for Lakeview, trained with family friend and coach of the Ursuline boys basketball team, Keith Gunther.
"He has taught me and my sister a ton and has helped us greatly," Alli said. "Training with him has made us shoot better. I got more confidence working with Gunther."
The offseason workouts have paid dividends for Pavlik. Lakeview is 15-5 and 9-1 in the All-American Conference, National Division. The junior averages 24.3 points per game, 5.2 rebounds and accumulates a mind-blowing 5.8 steals a game.
While those are accumulated over 20 games, there are two particular games that stick out from this past season.
On Dec. 13 against Campbell, Pavlik scored 47 ponts - in three quarters. The points were not only a career high, but she broke Gagne's record for points in a game (46) by a Lakeview girls player. Gagne had set the record last season.
"When she (Gagne) did it, that ignited a flame in me thinking 'Next year, I'm going to do the same thing.' "
Pavlik's other memorable feat is an accomplishment that only a few have done at any level in basketball. On Dec. 27 against LaBrae, Pavlik recorded a quadruple-double with 24 points, 11 rebounds, 10 assists and 11 steals.
"My assistant coach Jason Senedak always entertained the notion of me getting a triple-double," Pavlik stated. "Before the game I whispered to Senedak, 'How about a quadruple-double?' Jason said 'No way!' When people doubt me, it makes me want to do it more. So when I got it, Senedak was impressed."
Lewis acknowledges Pavlik's aggressive style of play to what she has accomplished this season.
"She goes out there and gives 100 percent. She never quits. She never wants to lose," Lewis said.
Though Pavlik is playing sensational on an individual echelon, she has been a prominent teammate as well.
"I try to encourage my teammates," Pavlik said. "When someone is upset about missing a basket, or making a bad pass, or when games are close, I try to constantly pick them up and I try to be the best role model for some of the younger girls. That's something that is really important to me.
"I need game day. When game day comes, I give everything I can in those games because no one remembers who comes in second. My goal is to make our team wins."
As the season is drawing to a close, she said that this is a season she will never forget. Pavlik is looking to add more memories come tournament time.
"Hopefully we get far this year. I think with the team that we have we will," she said. "The coaches are the reason we all stay together. They are each different in their own way, it makes it great for our team. We get excited to go to practice. It's enjoyable with them there. I can't thank them enough for what they have done for us."


text:
CNN released a new national poll...this morning...
The poll asked respondents a fairly straightforward question: "As you may know, a bill that makes major changes to the country's health care system became law earlier this year. Based on what you have read or heard about that legislation, do you generally favor or generally oppose it?"
Though support has gone up a bit over the course of the year, while opposition has declined, we're still left with 43% favoring the new law, as compared to 54% who disapprove. Steady improvements in the numbers don't change the fact that opponents still outnumber supporters.
But to its credit, CNN asked the much-needed follow-up question:
"Do you oppose that legislation because you think its approach toward health care is too liberal, or because you think it is not liberal enough?"
Favor: 43%
Oppose, too liberal: 37%
Oppose, not liberal enough 13%
Attention Health Care Reform Opponents: 37% Is Not A Majority
Current Status: Blessed (1)
Seeded on Mon Dec 27, 2010 10:48 AM
keyboard shortcuts: V vote up article J next comment K previous comment


text:
Amy Winehouse better watch out: The "new Amys" are coming on strong in '08. On the heels of Estelle and Duffy, Adele is continuing the charge of retro-soul chanteuses from the U.K. And this 20-year-old Londoner is arguably the best of them all. Her smashing debut—which opened at No. 1 in the U.K. after it was released there last January—seamlessly weaves R&B, pop, jazz, folk and blues into her own torchy tapestry. With a knockout voice that's rich and supple, robust and sultry, it's hard to believe that this singer-songwriter is barely out of her teens.
DOWNLOAD THIS: "Chasing Pavements," the lush, soaring single


text:
I have been falling off the wagon so to speak and am ready to publicly hold my feet to the fire to do a real 31 days of clean primal eating. Care to join me?
Let's also commit to 31 days of PBF too. We'll discuss both in this thread for sake of convenience.
To start off, how is your diet and fitness routine now? Where will you have to improve?
To join the challenge, commit now to checking in here daily and letting us know how you ate and how you moved. We can do it!
I think it's great to include some of the whole 9 restrictions, like no carrageenan (etc), no primal junk food, however I am open to leaving a few of the sensible vices in there within reason (like a glass of wine a week etc). Although we could really challenge ourselves and do the Whole30, if that's what we are all wanting to do! Anyone have any ground rules they'd like to add? For starters:
No grain
No legumes
No carageenan, MSG
No primal junk (paleo breads, pizza etc)
Dairy? - Could be off the table, or we can leave it to very restricted...
Alcohol- Could be off the table, or we can leave it to very restricted....
Dark chocolate .... we could make it interesting by allowing this sensible vice but ONLY if you make it yourself with no sugar (stevia, honey may be ok and again, very restricted)
Commitment to follow PBF regimen of at least 3 hours slow steady movement, 2 LHT and 1 sprint a week
Commitment to check in often with what you're eating and how you're moving (preferably daily)
Anyone have anything to add? Or should we just go all out and do it whole30 style? *gulp*
i think there are enough whole 30-ish threads, so 'just' doing Primal - no 80/20 - is a good idea. the 80/20 seems to get alot of folks into trouble. actually doing Primal 100% is not so easy - I am IN!
Personally, dairy troubles me, so I am ok with it off.
I dont drink,except once or twice a year, so I am ok with that off.
chocolate - I tend to overdo it! but that's why I am ok with it off, for a month anyway!
the exercise I can do.
Public commitment: 5'6" female, starting weight 153 lbs. would like to be about 145. The weight is flexible, because I look ok.
Lets do it, August 1st.
This is a cut and paste from the Whole 30 site. The only part I would take issue with is that I don't think cream and butter have enough milk solids in them to be a problem. That's the only dairy I use. Also I don't think we need to be that hard assed about "paleofy-ing" bad habits. If I take coconut cream and mix it with frozen fruit to make a "soft serve" dessert, it still only has two ingredients. I agree that anything with fake sweetening like primalized muffins would be out.
Interesting, it does not mention chocolate one way or the other, so I guess it's OK as long as it is 100% cocoa.
Also, I am going to weigh myself. I can see if you are just starting out how the scale prohibition could help you focus on the important stuff and not stress out about numbers. But I don't think that an issue for me.
"Our Whole30 program, as outlined.
Eat real food – meat, seafood, eggs, tons of vegetables, some fruit, and plenty of good fats from fruits, oils, nuts and seeds. Eat foods with very few ingredients, all pronounceable ingredients, or better yet, no ingredients listed at all.
More importantly, here's what NOT to eat during the duration of your Whole30 program.
Do not consume added sugar of any kind, real or artificial.
Do not consume alcohol, in any form, not even for cooking. (And it should go without saying, but no tobacco products of any sort)
Do not eat grains. This includes gluten-free pseudo-grains like quinoa.
Do not eat legumes. This includes beans of all kinds (No peanuts or peanut butter, either. This also includes all forms of soy.
Do not eat dairy. … with the exception of clarified butter or ghee.
Do not consume carrageenan, MSG or sulfites.
Do not eat white potatoes, red, purple, Yukon gold and fingerling potatoes.
No Paleo-ifying dessert or junk food choices!
One last and final rule. You are not allowed to step on the scale or take any body measurements for the duration of the program. (We do encourage you to weigh yourself before and after, however, so you can see one of the more tangible results of your efforts when your program is over.)
The Fine Print
A few concessions, based on our experience, and those of our clients. These foods are exceptions to the rule, and are allowed during your Whole30.
Clarified Butter or Ghee. .
Fruit juice as a sweetener.
Certain legumes. We're fine with green beans, sugar snap peas and snow peas. These are far more "pod" than "bean", and green plant matter is generally good for you.
Vinegar. Most forms of vinegar are allowed during your Whole30 program. The only exceptions are vinegars with added sugar, or malt vinegar, which generally contains gluten.
Processed foods. Minimally processed foods like canned coconut milk, applesauce, tomato sauce, chicken broth or canned olives are all acceptable on the Whole30."
Last edited by Paleobird; 07-26-2012 at 08:03 PM.
Here is a blog post from last year's Primal 30 day challenge:
The 2011 Primal Blueprint 30-Day Challenge Begins Now | Mark's Daily Apple
I think we can all use that as our launch point. If anyone wants to challenge themselves even further, say whole 30 style for example, then publicly state it in this thread!
For me, no more than 1 glass of wine a week, no chocolate unless I made it... What the heck, no packaged or prepared anything! I am starting this challenge because I have been slacking in diet and exercise a lot and am ready to really make some changes. I am 5'7", weigh 145 and haven't lost (and kept) a single pound off since the birth of my daughter 6 months ago. I want to lose at least 5 pounds during this challenge, and silence the sugar monster that's been harrassing me during these last few very stressful months.
I love this idea! I have a vacation coming up in mid-August, which will make it a bit harder for me (I'll basically be stuck in a hotel for 4 days, surrounded by junk food, with an Outback Restaurant in the hotel the closest thing to primal in sight). But if I attack this as primal according to Mark's challenge instead of the more strict Whole9 program, I think I can swing it:
1. No grains (easy, they throw my digestion out of whack anyway, last thing I want on vacation)
2. No beans/legumes (I never liked them that much to start with; going without has never been an issue)
3. No added sugar
4. No unhealthy fats
5. Fruit, dairy, alcohol and dark chocolate in moderation
6. Lift heavy things - I'm just now getting into the fitness side of this, so it's the perfect time to challenge myself. I joined a local Y today and the gym is really nice. I just have to figure out how to use stuff in it...
7. 3-5 hours easy moving each week - I do this already on an exercise bike parked in front of the TV (I have achilles problems that make walking problematic; I have to stay very low impact.) I've also just gone for my first swim in 15 years; thank god, I hadn't forgotten how. I only lasted 3 complete laps, resting in between; it's a LOT HARDER than I remembered! Which probably means it's great for me.
8. 1 all-out effort each week - I've been incorporating sprinting into my bike sessions for about a month. Swimming at all right now is kind of a sprint for me. So I think I can commit to this!
9. 15 minutes of direct sun exposure each day... this is harder for me, because I have an autoimmune condition that doesn't respond well to sunlight. I've been going out mid-day anyway, with sunscreen on the most sensitive bits. I keep my arms and legs bare and sunscreen free. So I think I can do this, but may have to back off if my skin suffers.
10. ~8 hours sleep a night. This is my hardest challenge, and will be hardest to achieve. I'm going to do my best. I generally only manage 6.5-7 hours. It's really, really hard for me to go to sleep at night. NOT insomnia. It's just that everything is so INTERESTING, I can't make myself go to bed, even if I'm yawning my head off. I've started magnesium citrate before bed and it seems to help a little. But I think this is about 90% behavioral for me, so it's the hardest lift.
11. PLAY. I'm totally into playing; I can swing this part easy if I just remind myself.
Another thing I want to commit to is meal-planning and sane grocery-buying. Right now I go at it with no plan, go every couple of days, and buy tons of crap I don't need and end up not eating. It's costing me way more than it should, even eating totally primal and buying mostly organic, grass-fed and wild at Whole Paycheck. I need to learn to strategize!
Last edited by merryish; 07-27-2012 at 11:46 AM.
I think going with Mark's PB Challenge makes a whole lot of sense too. Some of the restrictions in the Whole 30 just seem a little arbitrary to me.
Personally, I have already got the diet side of it pretty much nailed. I don't mean that to sound braggy but I've been doing this long enough that it is just normal for me, not something I have to work to maintain.
But I really need to get off my behind and exercise more.
My pre Kilimangaro hiking workout schedule was this for a week:
one long trail hike (10-15 miles)
one long urban hike (about 14 miles)
two LHT workouts
one sprint day
two rest days
Now that I am taking care of my Dad and have to get breakfast and dinner on the table, the longer hikes have become more difficult to work in. So, I should just do more frequent shorter walks. My dog agrees.
Ok, so what are your fitness goals?
For me, I've mostly got the 4 essential movements down, but no pullups yet. I want to do a pullup by the end of this challenge. I also plan to make good use of those WOWs for my LHTs, which will be new for me.
I do not want to do a Whole 30 again, but I would not mind doing a moderate dietary commitments to
no grains,
no added sugar,
no bad fats
art. sweetener only in whey isolate
For fitness, I would go with the second cycle of Wendler's 4x a week lifting + KB and DB support, and 1x a week sprint, plus min of 60 min of moving slowly. I would like to try 2x sprints a week on lighter weeks.
Additionally, I want to increase my daily cold shower duration from 7 min to 10 min eventually by adding half a minute or so every week or as soon as I can tolerate it.
My biggest challenge will be a road trip, where food might have bad oil & I doubt i can get into a gym, so I will aim to replace heavy lifting with body weight from the Be Your own Gym book....
My Journal: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/thread57916.html
When I let go of what I am, I become what I might be.


text:
Bayly's buzzer-beater lifts Behrend women past PS Altoona
Penn State Behrend 67, Penn State Altoona 65: At the Junker Center, Brianna Bayly rattled home a jump shot from 5 feet out at the buzzer to give Behrend its first AMCC win of the season Sunday.
Bayly's buzzer-beater came shortly after Behrend had blown a double-digit lead and Penn State Altoona's Courtney Becker tied the game at 65 with a 3-pointer.
Penn State Behrend (2-10 overall, 1-5 AMCC) took its largest lead of the game with just less than 13 minutes left at 51-37. But Altoona answered with an 11-2 run and eventually tied it at 60 on Moira Coorigan's layup with 3 minutes remaining. The Lions retook the lead on Natalie Corso's 3-pointer with a minute remaining and Becker knotted it again when she scored three of her team-high 20 points with 48 seconds left.
Penn State Altoona (2-10, 2-5) missed a pair of potentially go-ahead free throws on its next possession, setting the stage for Bayly's game-winner.
Mercyhurst Prep graduate Ally Burke scored 26 points -- one off her career high -- to lead Behrend.
The Lions held Altoona to 33.8 percent shooting but were outrebounded 45-34. Brittany Kiger had a game-high 14 rebounds for Behrend.


text:
Enter keywords, ISBN, author, or book title
Category: Fiction - Short Stories (single author)
Imprint: Random House Audio
Format: Unabridged Audiobook Download
Pub Date:
Price: $1.99
Can. Price: $2.49
Recipient's E-Mail Address:
(multiple addresses may be separated by commas.)
Send Information in E-mail
Send only link in E-Mail
A personal message:
RH.com | Privacy
Policy | Back to Top | Educator
Services | Contact Us
| Site Map | Permissions
2004 Random House LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
Top Definition
A person that claims to be of Portugese descent but really only has family coming in from Mozambique.
Most prolific in South Africa
Most prolific in South Africa
Raul said that he was proud to be Portugese, but everybody laughed and said he was just a Portobican.
viết bởi Sue Dunhym 18 Tháng mười, 2009
Trending Now
Can you define these popular missing words?


text:
Wakestyle riding in the Gorge and a new kind of kiteboarding cultureRead More »
Author Archives: Amy
Breaking in the Alps
Kiteboarding and lederhosen in Southern GermanyRead More »
Cool Kids
Miles of flat water riding, plus rails, in spectacular Guanaja, HondurasRead More »
Spain Sets a New World Record
The Virgin Kitesurfing Armada successfully puts 352 riders on the water for one mileRead More »
Tarifa Brings Big Air Back
PKRA competition goes big this week with winds gusting up to 35 knotsRead More »
This is the Life.
From Anegada to Necker Island, what's not to love about the British Virgin Islands?Read More »
2014 Dream Extreme New York
The largest kiteboarding charity event on the East Coast kicks-off next monthRead More »
FCS Partners with Slingshot
Bringing new innovation, performance and portability to boards.Read More »
2014 Virgin Kitesurfing Armada
Two events prepare to launch in an attempt to raise funds and break world recordsRead More »
Get Lit: Photos in the Field
Brazilian photographer Andre Magarao talks shop on making imagesRead More »
Master of the Ocean
Organizers announce dates for the 2015 event in the Dominican RepublicRead More »
New for Old
Best launches a new North American promotion this week, and it could save you lots.Read More »
2014 Cabrinha East Coast KiteFoil Championships
Fourteen racers hit the water and showcase the latest evolution in sailingRead More »
The TKB Beginner Instructional Guide
Step-by-step instruction, updated for 2014. Get yours now.Read More »
Red Bull Battle of the Sund
From Sweden to Denmark and back to Sweden again. That's how the battle is won.Read More »


text:
Burger King franchisees are fighting efforts by the company to divert hundreds of millions of dollars in rebates from soft-drink companies to its national advertising budget.
On April 6, Miami-based Burger King Corporation told franchisees that, starting next February, it would strip them of up to 40 percent of the rebates they receive from the Coca-Cola Company and Dr Pepper Snapple Group for purchasing soft-drink syrup. In response, the National Franchisee Association (NFA), a group representing about 90 percent of all Burger King franchisees in the U.S., filed a pair of lawsuits against Burger King on May 4. The lawsuits also name the soft-drink companies as defendants.
Filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on behalf of all Burger King franchisees (not just the 850 who comprise the NFA), the class-action lawsuits seek judgments declaring the franchisees the intended third-party recipients of the soft-drink rebates. Franchisees have received the payments since 1990 to help offset costs associated with equipment, promotions, and inspections, says the NFA, whose members own approximately 6,300 restaurants in the Burger King system.
"We simply want to maintain the status quo," NFA Chairman and Maryland franchisee William A. Harloe, Jr., said in a statement released by the association.
Filing a lawsuit was not the group's first course of action to resolve the problem. The association says several attempts to engage in discussions with the franchisor were unsuccessful.
"We attempted to resolve this issue quietly and amicably but were rebuffed time and time again," Harloe said in the statement. "BKC left us with no other alternative."
The Atlanta-based NFA claims franchisees are entitled to receive the rebates under agreements made in 1999 between Burger King and the soft drink companies, which are not set to run out until all restaurants purchase 600 million and 100 million gallons of soft-drink syrup from Coca-Cola and Dr Pepper, respectively. Diverting 40 percent of the rebates, the lawsuits claim, would cost franchisees $25 million in 2010, increasing to almost $40 million per year by 2012 and until 2022, when the NFA estimates the purchase commitment will be met. Burger King, Coca-Cola, and Dr Pepper, the lawsuits argue, cannot terminate or amend the agreements without the franchisees' consent.
Burger King, however, says the lawsuits are "without merit."
"BKC and the soft drink suppliers have the right under their agreements to reallocate these funds, which will be used for marketing and other promotional purposes," says a statement released by company spokeswoman Denise T. Wilson.
Atlanta-based Coca-Cola expressed a similar sentiment.
"We believe this lawsuit is without merit," says a statement from the company released by spokesman Scott Williamson. "We value our relationship with the Burger King system and support their desire to grow their business and the value of their brand."
Dr Pepper, too, backed Burger King.
"We support Burger King's strategy to fuel growth and add incremental value to their entire system," Greg Artkop, a spokesman for the Texas-based company, said in a statement. "The more consumers know about Burger King the better it is for all parties."
On April 16, the burger chain announced it would increase U.S. national advertising by 20 to 25 percent next year. The increase, it said, would be made possible through the allocation of restaurant-level funds to the national level and lower advertising rates. Franchisees, the NFA says, already contribute a percentage of their sales to the national advertising budget as determined by their individual franchise agreements.
"We are confident that this increase will enable the brand to continue its record positive comparable sales growth trend," Russ Klein, Burger King president of global marketing, strategy, and innovation, said at the time.
That announcement came less than two weeks before Burger King announced a profitable third quarter but lowered earnings expectations for the 2009 fiscal year, which the company blamed on the economy and possible effects from the swine flu outbreak. Burger King also said traffic in its restaurants declined significantly this past March.