The ant and the grasshopper

[kmcguffee 0]

Sure, go ahead
I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters.

[indyz 1]

Quote

Well, Springer was mayor of Cincinati (however it's spelt)

And he managed to get elected back to the city council a year after he resigned his position because the cops caught a hooker with a personal check that he had written her, then he went on to become mayor.
And he was born in London during WWII, so does he qualitify as a British politician?
--
Brian

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Seems a little unbecoming for our past President to now be at the same level as Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake!

At least he is moving up to the host level instead of guest....
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[billvon 3,058]

Equal-time-opposing-viewpoint version:
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his
house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the
summer away.
Come winter, the grasshopper crawls under some leaves to sleep. It's going to be another long, cold winter, but he's survived them before. The ant fires up the anthill heaters and settles back with a nice piece of fungus.
Well, pretty soon they're out of wood splinters for their heater. They start collecting leaves to burn instead. A few weeks later they uncover a grasshopper.
"Give me back my leaves!" he yells. "I need them so I don't freeze!"
"Sorry, chum," says the ant. "We have some industrial-strength heaters we gotta run here. You got no right to those leaves anyway." With that the ants haul away the last of the leaves.
The grasshoppers gather together and start protesting the theft of their leaves. Bush declares a fuel shortage, and says that leaves must be burned in the interests of national security. The EPA protests all the burning and pollution, but a massive leaf-burning trading company forms and lobbies congress to override the EPA. They do. Meanwhile, the new company (LeafRon) makes billions selling shares of their leaves - even though the ants have most of the leaves now and aren't sharing.
Adam Ant makes $50 million in a deal to promote the new LeafRon company. He makes music videos in which kind and gentle ants tend to their families in the warm anthills while warring terrorist grasshoppers try to kill and maim insects everywhere.
The grasshoppers file a lawsuit trying to force the ants to give them either leaves or blankets back. The headline on the Fox News website reads "Terrorist grasshoppers present demands to promising startup company; CEO stands strong against them."
Bush asks the head of LeafRon, Eddy Ant (no relation to Adam) to help him draft his energy proposal. When it is released, it gives LeafRon exclusive access to leaves everywhere, and contains an anti-grasshopper clause - whenever any grasshoppers are found they can be herded into "reservations" to prevent messy protests. The law of eminent domain is invoked.
Time passes. Many of the grasshoppers freeze to death huddled on the bare dirt of the new reservations. Some of the survivors are jailed for failing to pay the new energy tax. No one really cares since everyone's making a lot of money off LeafRon.
Without warning, LeafRon tanks. An inquiry reveals they don't actually have any leaves, or indeed assets of any kind. Bush, when asked about it, replies "Eddie who? LeafRon? Never heard of em."
In the ant burrows, ants are dying by the thousands from the indoor pollution caused by the heaters. Apparently, some leaves are very toxic to ants when burned. The EPA warnings about this went unheeded, unfortunately.
There are massive public protests against LeafRon, since many people lost their entire life savings. Bush still defends his proposal to let them do the same thing with their social security.
Meanwhile, the grasshoppers have opened casinos on the reservations, and are actually doing pretty well now that they can buy blankets. Republicans suddenly realize that grasshoppers vote and start promising them tax breaks - and politics in the US goes on.
-bill von

[billvon 3,058]

>Well, Springer was mayor of Cincinati (however it's spelt) . . .
Heck, we have actors as mayors, professional wrestlers as governors - heck, we even elected a former actor to president some years back. Showbiz is big here in the US.
-bill von

[Skyrose7 0]

he he, I knew it was coming. Nice stories, both a ya. very funny way to make very sad but true points. The mind is like a parachute--it works better when it is open. JUMP.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Republicans suck. Democrats suck. So what's the ideal government??
Appoint me Supreme Dictator and I'll tell you! fuck it I'm a molecular biologist. I'll just clone my own voters!!
MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"

[Skyrose7 0]

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaannarchyyyyyyyyy!
well, just kidding. that probably wouldn't work either
The mind is like a parachute--it works better when it is open. JUMP.

[grasshopper 0]

Quote

the grasshopper thinks he's a fool

and then I laughed and danced and played the summer away. what, like I should work all summer just to survive? I'd rather have some fun.

[FallRate 0]

The idea of Clinton having been our President is quite unbecoming. He really should stick to what he is good at and become a used-car salesman.
For all those who feel Clinton was a good and dignified President, please remove yourselves from our gene pool. Thank you.
FallRate

[FallRate 0]

Quote

Equal-time-opposing-viewpoint version...

Contrary to popular opinion, a rational argument does not necessitate an irrational rant in response.
FallRate

[billvon 3,058]

>Contrary to popular opinion, a rational argument does not necessitate an
>irrational rant in response.
Ah, so you're one of those people who laughs uproariously at jokes about democrats, but when you overhear jokes about republicans, you scowl and say "that's not funny?"
I guess that makes sense. After all, politics boils down to nothing more than party affiliations. Makes life easy - all republicans are right, all democrats are wrong. Nixon was not a crook, and Kennedy was really a communist spy. Avoids the sometimes-painful process of thought.
-bill von

[FallRate 0]

True, my laughs are usually more hearty when triggered by a gibe aimed at Democrats, as opposed to Republicans. But that can be understood by the fact that they, the Democrats, tend to provide us with a much higher grade of comedic material to ponder. But that is not to say that the Republicans are in any way lacking in their ability to show us just how ridiculous humans can be at times. Just think "Reaganomics", "Flag-Burning", "Family Values", "Dan Quayle", etc...
And speaking of the "sometimes-painful process of thought"... To assume that I am a Republican based on my previous post, or any post I have made in these forums, would not only be an incorrect assumption but also indicative of a willingness to oversimplify your impression of other's political viewpoints based on specific opinions. My "political" opinions are not predicated on any party's platform.
Now, to explain my post in more detail. This parable we have been presented with is not a simple joke aimed at "bleeding-hearts". It illustrates the fact that while we have attempted to take greater action in securing for everyone a greater quality of life, we have ignored the single most important factor in the determination of whether or not a person will succeed in achieving a greater quality of life. And that is personal responsibility. If we continue to portray every individual in an unfortunate situation as an innocent victim of our society's inherent cruelty then we will never remedy those unfortunate situations.
This story illustrates a problem that is easily identifiable. That is that the situation the Grasshopper has found himself in is avoidable and is not the fault of the Ant. So to blame the Ant would be wrong and to take from the Ant would be wrong. It will also do nothing to prevent a future unfortunate situation. Unfortunately, blame is a common route taken by some who wish to improve unfortunate situations in our society (cliche Democratic viewpoint).
BUT (and I imagine this is what irritates you Bill)...
The idea that the Grasshopper has made free choices and must live with the consequences of those choices with no regard for his well-being from the rest of his community (cliche Republican viewpoint), is ultimately not in the best interest of the community. (The story neglects to point out that after one night of being cold and hungry the Grasshopper realizes he is much bigger than the Ant, and subsequently eats the Ant after taking up residence in the Ant's comfortable home.) And it also happens to be damn insensitive. Yes, "caring" is not some stupid liberal ideal. It happens to be a good thing. (My opinion...and I stand by it.)
Ultimately it comes down to "giving a fish or teaching to fish". And seeing as it is simpler and much less time-consuming to give a fish, the majority of our increasingly fast-paced society who do "care" are opting for this quicker "solution". And quite often they are asking or demanding that others sacrifice their own fish to fuel what has become an ongoing problem.
My characterization of your response to this post as an "irrational rant" is one I will stand by. But I did not mean it to be insulting, or to have indicated that I took offense. Obviously the tone of the original post was critical of those who are overly "sympathetic" to the point that they do more harm than good. Your post was, as I read it, an example of excessive self-interest and its equally negative consequences. But this is not a question of either/or. It is not a case of give a fish or don't give a fish; care or don't care. The point of the story is that misguided "caring" can be detrimental. That does not mean that caring for others is wrong. But it leads us to ask of ourselves: "How do we best care for others?"
FallRate

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

we even elected a former actor to president some years back

As hard as we try we still aren't as cool as Italy. They elect female porn stars to Senate seats. How cool is that? BTW....although Reagan was an actor he had also been involved in Politics for nearly all of his adult life.
"It's all about the BOOBIES!"

[trmnljnky 0]

Quote

Did you hear Clinton was in negotiations with NBC for an afternoon talk show? Seems a little unbecoming for our past President to now be at the same level as Jerry Springer and Ricki Lake!

I didn't know he could raise to that level.
Byron

[Billy 0]

OK, BillV an FallRate,, heres my Political view,, Darwinism should rule,, for the most part society is helping along DNA that is bad for the future of mankind as a species,, example,, JQ Public has 6 kids,, he's by all accounts a friggin idiot,, totally wasted his gray matter and can hardly tie his shoe,,, Joe IQ has 2,, but all the toys an his kids are well educated,,in a couple generations the planet is full of idots,, with a very few folks ta figure shit out,, society totally collapses,, the few survivors are base jumpers who know how ta garden and raise horses,, the real heroes know how ta brew there own beer! Beer is traded for silk ta make new gear,, silk is made by worms,, Grasshoppers eat leaves,, worms need leaves ta make silk,, hmmm,,, WTF was I thinkin,, oh yea,, don't drink an post,, Hay Bytch,, Can't wait!! It was friigin cold here today,, jump run was cut short by clouds,, climbed out into a friggin snowstorm!! That shit hurts!!

[FallRate 0]

Funny thing about Darwinism and Evolution is that quite often the "simpler" (dumber) life forms win out. Funny thing about humans, they tend not to simply lie down and die when they are supposed to do so.
FallRate

[billvon 3,058]

>The idea that the Grasshopper has made free choices and must live with the
> consequences of those choices with no regard for his well-being from the rest of
> his community (cliche Republican viewpoint), is ultimately not in the best
> interest of the community.
I disagree that the community has any duty to ensure that anyone lives in a certain way. Privately, yes - contribute however you choose; help out the poor. But in government? They have no role in forcing people to live a certain way.
>(The story neglects to point out that after one night of being cold and hungry the
> Grasshopper realizes he is much bigger than the Ant, and subsequently eats
> the Ant after taking up residence in the Ant's comfortable home.)
Actually, my grasshopper doesn't do that - feel free to write your own version if you like.
>And seeing as it is simpler and much less time-consuming to give a fish,
> the majority of our increasingly fast-paced society who do "care" are opting for
> this quicker "solution". And quite often they are asking or demanding that others
> sacrifice their own fish to fuel what has become an ongoing problem.
Some people don't want to fish, and I don't think anyone should force them. On the other hand, if they refuse even free training, they're on their own.
>My characterization of your response to this post as an "irrational rant" is one I
> will stand by.
No problem. I hope you, in turn, will not take offense if I consider you to live in a world that has no shades of gray.
>Obviously the tone of the original post was critical of those who are
> overly "sympathetic" to the point that they do more harm than good. Your post
> was, as I read it, an example of excessive self-interest and its equally negative
> consequences.
Yes; both parables were extreme points of view; neither one is valid. As you consider one a rational argument, and the other an irrational rant, I get the feeling one fell on the 'white' side of your line and one on the 'black.' That's no problem - heck, the majority of the world sees things in black and white, and always wants to be on the winning team. You are in good company.
-bill von

[FallRate 0]

Bill, "teaching to fish" is a metaphor in this case. Read as "taught the necessary skills to survive", I would imagine it is what you mean by "free training". And if these people do refuse free training, perhaps they should be left on their own to suffer the consequences, as you believe. However, the original parable illustrates the valid point that these people are not left to suffer the consequences of their own decisions and actions in our society; no one in an unfortunate situation is seen to be at fault. (That, of course, would be much too "black and white". And who in the world would want to be thought capable of formulating a reasonable opinion, and then--Dear God, NO!!!--taking a firm position based on that opinion? ) So while the first parable seems extreme, it does illustrate a valid point of view.
As for the second parable I will concur with you: it represented an extreme and invalid point of view. Just kidding. Actually, I took your original post to be a direct attempt at a rebuttal to the ideas presented in the first. But from what you have said, it appears your post was not a partisan response to criticism of a position you hold (which would have been an irrational response), but simply an entirely seperate parable focusing on the stupidity of the "other" guys.
By the way, you gave me a great idea for a signature line!
FallRate
"You have a firm belief? You must have overlooked something!"