Slashdot Mirror

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled"

More information on this is available here.

... More free stuff.

Lets assume we gave all the people in public housing 100 percent of everything they want/need free.

Have we encouraged them or given them the opportunities to better their lives?

Nope.

Public housing should be seen as a temporary solution to temporary problems in a person's life. That or permanent if someone is very disabled which most of the people in PHing are not.

People are raising SECOND generations of children in public housing. That is madness. Get these people out of public housing if they've been in it for more then a couple years.

That might mean encouraging them to leave big cities they can't afford to live in. Tough. If you're poor, why would you think you can afford to live in places with high costs of living?

PHing the way it is implemented is bad on so many levels. I almost don't know where to start with it.

Absolutely correct. There has to be another way. And of course there is. I'd like to propose a solution. A proposal for preventing the poor people in the United States from being a burden to their parents or country. It would also make them beneficial to the public at-large. I've posted my thoughts online for public comment. I think we should push ahead with due haste, don't you?

A strong nation ID card would help such that even casual employment was not possible without prior approval by local police would go a long way towards stopping illegals from having the desire to get here. Yet businesses love lowering the wage pool by flooding illegal immigrants into the nation. I wonder just how much the price of groceries would jump if illegal farm labor was shut down. And the absolute bottom line is that reproduction as well as immigration degrades the quality of life for all of us. We need strict population size control.

You're absolutely right. Those people don't deserve to live here, thinking they can come to this country and have their descendants live here too! And all those wetback children using our diapers are a disgrace! We Americans have been here since the beginning of the American continent, formed as the super-continent Pangaea broke up starting about 175 million years ago. Immigrants must be stopped. They never gave us anything but trouble. But why stop with just keeping out the immigrants and limiting procreation (that's worked out really well in China, no?)? Let's get Swiftian on their asses! MMMM babies!

Indeed. Today we are given vaccine shots against typhoid. Before the general medical consensus was to ingest mercury as a cure. Interesting article here. Of course there was the medical backlash and studies to show no links between mercury and poisoning. All wrong. I had mercury fillings in my teeth when I was younger, which I was then told was poisonous and had to be drilled out and replaced. Very pleasant.

McCarthy has a good point. We can't keep pumping our kids full of these old vaccines without doing regular studies, and using some of the profits to ensure safer versions. Personally I will selectively vaccinate my kids up to a certain age, depending on risk factor, then they can choose themselves. I had both mumps and measles, it was hardly a big deal. If the kids are old enough it's probably even better they get it naturally and get over it than take the vaccine.

Phillip.

In that vein, it might definitely be more interesting to see how past "futurist" have fared.

For example The Distance Learning School, where Kurd Lasswitz extrapolated from telephone/phonograph/televison technology of 1899 how "remote teaching" could look like in 1999.

Whether the multiplier effect can be applied across the board (for all safety net spending) is an open question.

Whether the multiplier effect is greater when money is given to the person who has no job, or greater when it is not taken from someone in taxes, is also an open question. There are good reasons to have unemployment insurance other than economic reasons, that's not really why we have the program.

Actually, IIRC the numbers show that those with less money generally spend it all and that drives demand in the economy, which can stimulate jobs growth and generate more economic activity than those who save or invest the money. I know I saw a number of papers about this after the stimulus tax relief a few years back. If I can dig it up, I'll post a link.

I agree that there are non-economic reasons to have programs like food stamps and unemployment insurance. We, as a society, have a responsibility to help those who are less fortunate.

As an aside, I believe that wealth and income inequality are doing terrible damage to our society and are shredding the social contract. How we fix that, I don't know. But when, in the richest country that ever existed, 1/3 of the children live in poverty, something is terribly wrong. And I don't think a Swiftian solution is a good one.

Right, and then let's start mixing it into aids victims treatments, and then let's mix it into the food at homeless shelters, and then let's coat welfare checks with it, and then let's let's let's...
And then let's... http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Agreed. And I refuse to eat at Burger King because I've seen how that "fresh, char-broiled patty" or whatever started it's life. No thanks...when I'm poor I don't have the money for meat, when I'm flush I eat the good stuff.

Of course, while we're on the topic of alternative sources of meat, let's think again about A Modest Proposal. Except I'm not suggesting we eat the Irish - I'm part-Irish, we eat potatoes, plus we're more likely to kill you than vice-versa. But think about all those infants put up for adoption, or abused by being forced to walk around shopping malls behind 500+ lb. welfare mothers in mu-mus who somehow miraculously manage to drive Cadillac Escalades and clothe those children in brand-name sports clothing that costs hundred of dollars. Think of all the waste there, and of the health of the mothers. They could probably walk faster, get some exercise, perhaps even get out of the rat-race lifestyle of collecting welfare and having eight baby-daddies that they stash illegal narcotics for (when said daddies' aren't in prison) that forces them to buy Escalades and two-hundred dollar Nikes. Their lives would be improved, and they would no longer need to fear pregnancy when sleeping with the guy around who has the most gold chains. Or we could expedite matters and use that 500 pounds of previously useless meat as fit.

And imagine the change in lifestyle for the American people. No more farm subsidies, and the insurance companies could make a killing off a child's birth. The entire food industry would be revolutionized, except for possibly Church's, where "White meat or dark?" brings an added charge for White meat. Maybe it would change to "White meat or Darkie?", but that's about it. And consider the amount of time spent hunting whales or manufacturing synthetic oils. No more - use the body's natural fats.

So consider it my friends - we might be able to fix the economy right there. If not, too bad the president is so skinny. However, his wife, her friends, and most of Congress could all stand to lose some weight. Maybe all of it, eh?

In all seriousness, we should take all the long-term welfare recipients and their children, politicians (Democrats especially), illegal aliens, and MBA-touting middle management fuckers and their fat wives and kids, turn them loose in the woods, and sell passes good for N number of kills to hunter's clubs. It's the ultimate solution for the people who put us in this mess anyway (throw in the Bush family as well...they're already pickled anyways, and wouldn't feel or fear a thing with all the cocaine). And since most people who are hunters are working or middle class, it would be a very appropriate turn-around.

But this grown meat thing sounds promising once we run out of useless fat people. Lookout, Rosanne! Can't buy or lie your way our of this one. Ahem. As I was saying, this grown meat bit sounds quite good once we've exhausted the means at hand. After all, what we would eat? Animals? What did they ever do to us?

I suggest you read this. I take it you didn't read as far as my argument about depiliation to reduce cysts ;)
Of course, that's tangental to both the supposed point AND the real point I was trying to make with my post.

Swift's A Modest Proposal .

Yummy!

”I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled ...”

Roasted would be the way to go I think. That way, you wouldn't lose all the juice.

Please recalibrate your sarcasmeter; stephanruby was engaging in deadpan satire, not frank honesty. I'll refer you to my preferred benchmark, Swift's A Modest Proposal .

It isn't a feasible plan. It isn't meant to be, hence the "Modest Proposal" title. For those who don't get the reference, read here http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html.

Let me ask you a question. If your options were 1) Use a power source that doesn't require emission of CO2 to clean up CO2 or 2) Replace CO2 emitting power plants with power sources that don't require emission of CO2, which do you think would be more efficient? If you said #1, you missed a law of physics or two.

The point of the article was to point out the absurdity of the "clean up CO2" vs "don't emit CO2" idea in the first place.

There is, of course a third options. If we use the poor as our food stock we can solve the overpopulation and we can give purpose to the unemployed!

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Swift had it right:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

This article seems an immodest proposal, to say the least.

This is trivializing over a century of wanton bloodshed and terror to make a point. Poorly. It's a point that has been made by science in far more peaceful and compelling terms.

I couldn't find it funny. I tried. This is, IMHO, simply tasteless. Perhaps this will endure, as Swift above, but I doubt it.

Right now, all I can say is thanks for your small contribution to the death of rational, purposeful discourse. Good luck.

I'm reminded of the old "A Modest Proposal" here.

Overpopulation is a real concern in many nations. It continues to be a real global worry; past issues with overpopulation were solved by certain technical changes (sewers and flush toilets replaced tossing shit in the streets, automobiles replaced horse and buggy, air conditioning and pipe-delivered or electrical heating systems replaced sweltering and siestas and wood-burning stoves) that we can't rely on for the future.

At some point, something radical has to change. Either a population limitation will happen from within, or it'll happen because of some hurdle we can't overcome. The scare of SARS, avian flu, etc were overblown, but the possibility of something actually nasty that's airborne and able to take out, say, 20% of the population is pretty real even in the age of modern medicine as long as it's pernicious enough.

With AIDS we actually got lucky that it's a body-fluid transmitted pathogen. Imagine a variant that travels by cough and doesn't get diagnosed till someone's been a carrier for a couple years.

See Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal" written in 1729.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

"I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout."

and

"The constant breeders, beside the gain of eight shillings sterling per annum by the sale of their children, will be rid of the charge of maintaining them after the first year."

Clearly this is an old idea. What's the delay in getting this wholesome food into the grocery stores?

How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?

I bet that would work now too! Just put together a declaration that has all your favorite stuff in it, we'll sign it, and the world will be a vastly better place! I wonder why no one has thought of this before?

I mean, what are babies good for anyway?

You're kidding, right? As early as the 18th century, many practical uses had been identified.

And if people are completely unable to take care of their children, Jonathan Swift pointed out a quite reasonable solution.

Your judgment of people and assessment of their value is HIGHLY disturbing. The fact you have a +5 insightful, makes it even more saddening. Those millions of people you'd sooner see die in order to save a single bonds trader puts you on the intellectual level of some of the worlds finest despots.

You might want to look up someone named Jonathan Swift. He had an even more terrible proposal and seems worse.

You think a dog is bad - you should see the ecological footprint of an Irish child!

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

A Modest Proposal

For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland From Being A burden to Their Parents or Country, and For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

By Jonathan Swift (1729)

an excerpt:

"I have reckoned upon a medium that a child just born will weigh 12 pounds, and in a solar year, if tolerably nursed, increaseth to 28 pounds.

"I grant this food will be somewhat dear, and therefore very proper for landlords, who, as they have already devoured most of the parents, seem to have the best title to the children."

And don't forget to read the companion cookbook, "To Serve Man" ... here ya go: http://www.amazon.com/Serve-Man-Cookbook-People/dp/1880448823

I'm obviously going to win with my idea to feed the people from overpopulated countries to starving people. Gets rid of world hunger and overpopulation!

I'm afraid there's prior art...A Modest Proposal

So you mean to say that Jonathan Swift didn't actually want the Irish to eat their own babies?

Yes, but let me present a Modest Proposal. Additionally, we can sequester the methane with a leakproof membrane and put it to use in a variety of entertaining diversions. How much more sustainable can you get than that?

Has anyone considered eating the Irish?

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

I thought it was supposed to be e) funny. In the sense of Defoe's A Modest Proposal. Similarly hoping to provoke discussion.

With apologies in advance to Jonathan Swift, I think this is a great idea. But I'd go one step further. One could just as easily have driven a Ryder truck filled with explosives and put it under the World Trade Center. In fact, terrorists tried that once, and it almost worked. I feel strongly that we should be required to have a 72 hour screening period before renting a vehicle. Of course, if your car breaks down and you need a rental, you should have joined the "trusted driver" program ahead of time. We should also require such a screening before you can buy a car. After all, terrorists spent thousands of dollars on explosives for that truck, so what's another few thousand to buy or lease a car? I think you can see how important it is that only trusted patriotic Americans be allowed to purchase an automobile.

Further, automobiles only provide the casing for the bomb. We should have similar levels of trust for people purchasing bomb-making supplies. For example, we should require a minimum of a 7 day waiting period and appropriate security screening prior to purchasing fertilizer, as you can easily use that to make a bomb. Don't forget gasoline, either. We need at least a 72 hour screening period before you can fill up at the pump. People who need to fill up quickly should trade their privacy rights as part of our "trusted gas purchaser" program.

But that's not the biggest problem we face. The fundamental truth is that terrorists are people. None of these problems would exist if people prone to terrorist actions were not allowed to be born. For this reason, I would like to recommend a mandatory DNA screening prior to giving birth to children. Any children with terroristic tendencies should not be allowed to be carried to term. As an added bonus, these aborted fetuses can be used for scientific research, and in some cases, can be repurposed as a healthy food source for our nation's underprivileged.

I hope by this point you realize that this entire post is satire. My purpose in writing it is to show just how silly the argument of prescreening for aircraft flights in the name of national security really is. While I can't see the U.S. government actually going so far as suggesting that we eat babies to protect against terrorism, we are rapidly approaching that level of absurdity in our national security policy. I think it is time that we all take a step back, breathe, then laugh out loud at these policies at every possible opportunity. Only through laughter can we adequately portray the current administration and its policies as the laughingstock that they are.

Not sure what to have for dinner? I have a modest proposal I think you may be interested in ;)

Don't know if you realise this, but a very similar solution to a very different problem was proposed a few centuries ago:

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

(Read it through. It's worth it)

It's called satire. There's quite a history of it:
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

What, exactly, did you think your kids were going to eat?

I think your question might be misstated.

Eating is also a fundamental right, and I'd say it sure as hell trumps the right to have more children!

Oh, why choose?

Back in the day if you were in a mailbox view or something that didn't support typing things in, and you started typing, it would beep with the system sound at each keystroke for the first 10 or so keystrokes, before popping up a dialog box that read "You can keep typing if you want to but no one is listening right now..." or something to that effect.

Now onto the later versions of it, they would just pop up a box that read "No window supporting user input is open" or something like that on the very first keypress. Stupid. With the old version I would usually realize what had happened before the dialog opened. With the new one I had to close that dialog with the first mistake, and it didn't try to humor me at the same time. I found that alone massively annoying, but things like that kept up in other parts of the program for while, and that in conjunction with the adware and my move to OS X prompted my move to Mail.app.

Maybe Eudora will get some of it's original personality back. I mean even the name has more personality than most other programs out there:

Why I Live at the P.O. by Eudora Welty

-Mikey P

Re-read the constitution, realize that Benjamin Franklin (the architect of that document) was a genius

Actually, as author of the Virginia Plan that was the de facto agenda for the Philadelphia convention, and one of the later authors of the Federalist Papers defending the final document, James Madison was the primary architect, and the one usually credited as "Father of the Constitution".

As for your modest proposal, I suggest you review your history of the French Revolution. Take them out and have them shot... but dot the legal i's and cross the t's first.

Oh, and "put down the crack pipe", troll.

Jonathon Swift's A Modest Proposal has some advice for survival.

Actually, the case for eating babies was made a long time ago.

The kid lied, and cracked under pressure when his prof started asking pointed questions about inconsistencies. The story should have raised red flags (heh) everywhere, since you can find "original, authorized" copies of the Selected Quotations of Chairman Mao Zedong in most languages (including Chinese) near you: Just Google. "Authorized selected quotations," yet. You clowns will swallow anything. The version at http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/work s/red-book/ is pretty official, but the edition at http://art-bin.com/art/omaotoc.html is downright canonical, since it's a verbatim copy of the Foreign Languages Press (Beijing) edition of 1970.

Anyway, I actually bought a copy of it in the 60's (or was it the 70's?) and was not too impressed. I probably still have a copy somewhere...

Duh!
It's online, of course! And just as boring now as it was 30 years ago. Really, a world-class snoozer.

He had to do an ILL just to get the Little Red Book? His own library must be sadly underfunded and/or badly run. The LRB is not exactly great writing, but it is the best known work of a man who was the undisputed ruler of a billion people for decades.

If you use the Coral CDN Network (add .nyud.net:8090 after the .com and before the /) then you can't track downloads since the file is being fetched through a proxy. I think you can understand why I wouldn't take your word for it.

As a by product, it'll free up bandwidth for whatever else you want to host. (It doesn't work on files over 50MB)

So I'll fix your links for you:
free ebook version
compiled from the one here

Like here?

You could even do a practical test and jump over to this site and read or reread the Little Red Book. If anyone knocks on your door a few hours later then maybe your theory is wrong. ;)

Here's a free ebook version in most accesible formats, compiled from the one here. I don't track downloads.

I know this is flamebait. As someone who is not from England or the US - only Americans would mod the parent post to 5. Clever American humour is almost impossible to find. Please don't say "will & grace", "malcolm in the middle" or other such agonisingly painful shows.

Either
a) all of the poor humour is exported to the rest of the world
b) Clever American humour is almost non-existent

There are exceptions to every rule (eg. futurama is very intelligent ... such as the reference to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle). I am sure someone will follow up with a list of more agonising shows that are "great comedy" such as Seinfeld, Friends, Fresh Prince of Belair, Punky Brewster, Alf, The Nanny (named Fran), etc.

I understand why Americans don't understand English satire (of which there is a lot of good satire). "Dead Pan Delivery" could be read as faux-pas. In English comedy - it's not the "fart" or the "dog" or the "slightly showing bra-strap" that are funny ... it's the character's flaws, the circumstance, the dynamics of the group that can create the humour.

On a side note, i've attached a reference to satire so that anyone who is interested can educate themselves with a classic example. Beware, it includes
- deadpan delivery of random combinations of weak sarcasm and patent absurdity for wit.
- He then claims the audience is too low-brow to catch the subtlety of the humor, when in reality it's just not particularly funny.

http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

Just my AC 2 cents worth.

AC
PS Yes, I did quote the parent article on my two dash (-) points.

Obviously a satirical article. Much akin to the satire contained in A Modern Proposal by Jonathan Swift (1729).

Hopefully not, but I can completely see that. And going back to the grandparent, perhaps Frederick Wertham is a more apt analogy here.

I bet back in the day, there were people going "Just who is this Jonathan Swift, anyway?" Utilitarianism is a bit out-of-vogue these days, so it should be pretty obvious (even to pseudo-insightful early poster gasbags -- no offense) that this is satire . It's soliciting an answer, not providing one (see the last sentence).

A Modest Proposal