Ridiculous. In the graphic, it is not costing the tall guy anything to let the short guy see. In reality, it costs the net-givers tens of thousands of dollars over their lifetimes to support the net-takers.

It was pretty easy to guess that this guy was an ivory tower academic:
http://www.stern.nyu.edu/faculty/bio/jonathan-haidt

It's interesting to see who responds, and what they focus on.

from the talk...

"as Edmund Burke said,
"The restraints on men, as well as their liberties, are to be reckoned among their rights."

" So once you see this -- once you see that liberals and conservatives both have something to contribute, that they form a balance on change versus stability -- then I think the way is open to step outside the moral matrix.""

So Jan, how much should one give to another before they are morally righteous in your eyes, or in the author's if you rather?

It is my contention that when you weigh all taxes/fees/mandates/contributions, federal, state and local that should never exceed 50%. What is your guess at what we are at today?
(not that I know exactly, as that is not an easy number to come up with and it will take me time to find a credible set of sources to do that math for just NH let alone all the states; but suffice it to say that I have heard it reported that New Yorker's are over 60% now........)

Jan Schmidt : "The answer is before you Charlie - I am a liberal"

Thanks for being honest. In one of the gun debates there was a chance one may have misidentified you as a moderate democrat . Now that you cleared that up we know where you stand on most issues.

Jan your opwn husband dosnt beleive in private ownership of handguns. You actualy want me to beleive you beleive in gun rights?
As to your question , maybe they can be.
It would be about as rare as a hole in one.

On a par 4

Sometimes they do . Yes I am married, to a wonderful woman who shares my views on most things. Like me , she is also pro choice. Not the single issue pro choice some like to call themsleves, real pro choice. Abortion , guns, seatbelts helmets.

Lets face it Jan , you can try to lie to these people but you and I both know you are in favor of gun control. Well its called gun control because it involves guns and it needs to be called something , but lets face it , its people control . Something both sides are quite guilty of.

I give it a yr before your known in the halls of the state house as " gun ban Jan"

Yes I do beleive in freedom. My goal is not to control people , unlike you.

Control you, now thats funny. How am I trying to control you? I do beleive in responsability . Probably a lot more then you.

Are you kidding me? Abuse? Its a political forum and you chose to put yourself in a position to make decisions that will affect all of us. Not even in office yet and crying victom. Grow up.

Middleground . oh please do tell. You want to fix problems that dont exist by passing legislation that is not needed. Thats not middle ground. Thats a control freak in action.

Looking at the cartoon again, it is obvious that all three of these individuals are liberals. None has purchased a ticket to the baseball game and they are all participating in theft. The conservatives are the ones that bought a ticket and are watching from the stands...

Ok Jan , tommorow is a new yr. Ill give ya a chance. See if you are a moderate. Im sure there will be a vote to ban guns from the statehouse. Heres ya shot. Lets see how you vote.

Jan and Mr Jan are socialists, not liberals. Tell the truth, rep Jan !

I left the talk by Dr. Haidt at the remark "You can understand why anybody would eat at Applebee's, but not anybody that you know..." (Full Disclosure: I have eaten at Applebee's, though I don't patronize the place. I have also eaten at Michael Timothy's and Surf, and I don't patronize them. I patronize my own kitchen.) I briefly wondered what the choice of my place to eat or the art I appreciated had to do with my politics or morality. I mean I like Grandma Moses' and Norman Rockwell's stuff, and I like Michaelangelo's David as well as his Pieta. I may go back to Haidt's lecture, but not so that I will "learn' anything therefrom. I'll go for the laughs.

Before I was 19 I'd circumnavigated the globe on my own, and have never passed up an opportunity for an "adventure", even one that might be only a block away. I can't figure why that should be considered a predictor of one's politics or morality, or much of anything else. I mean William F. Buckley appreciated the "David" sculpture and loved fine food, and probably never ate in Applebee's.

Charles Chaput, who has more Native American blood than a recently elected Senator but would never stand for election, recently said this about virtue: "Tolerance is not a Christian virtue. Mercy, Justice, Honesty, Prudence, Charity...these are Christian virtues." (Sorry about "that word", but Chaput used it, not me.) I think we have in these latter days tossed away the framework within which all could understand what was mean by morals and ethics. Without that framework, politics is useless.

It isn't anything like a "Standard Error" at all. The new "standard"...Man Is the Measure of All Things is an error.