1044: “Romney Quiz”

[dp2]

It's not funny. This is the first xkcd comic I've been genuinely disappointed in. Usually xkcd sucks makes me mad, but I'm predicting I'll agree with it on this one.

It's the first in a LONG time that I've laughed out loud at. It's absurd and mocks a stupid meme.

[jondamstr]

The comic is a parody of this: http://i.huffpost.com/gen/520957/MITT-ROMNEY-OR-MR-BURNS.jpg
Mirror link: http://i.imgur.com/pElcG.jpg

I'm glad someone else gets this. I thoroughly enjoyed this comic (the punchline being that the quotes were so obviously attributable to one or the other), and was very disappointed to see all the negative initial comments.

[San Fran Sam]

Romney's actually not that bad. As a Massachusettian I've heard from everyone I know who grew up with him that he always acted just as their friend's father. Politics.. meh. I don't know. The healthcare thing hasn't caused turmoil here though, so...


Oh, dammit Randall. You reminded me of a rant I was going on during my ride to a bioenginnering symposium today.

Willy Wonka is an ass. Think about it. He throws a tantrum over a few workers being unfaithful, closes his factory in a fit, and lays off hundreds if not thouands of local workers and plunges the city into a chocolateless depression. Then, while many of his workers spiral into poverty, he spends off his vast fortunes on building elaborate and unneccessary decorations and contraptions inside of his factory. And then, when this mad industrialist decides to open up his playhouse to five children, the world goes insane with love for him, despite the town still being in depression and all of the workers still unemployed, their jobs given to cheap foreign (possibly) child labor.

Or so I say.

Wait a second. Are we talking about Willy Wonka or John Galt?

[jbard]

Randall, we don't all read the same things you do. Some of us aren't Americans, some aren't scientists, some aren't mathematicians, some aren't romantics, some aren't coders, etc. Yet somehow, most of your comics are still easily accessible even to people outside a given field, which is a good part of the reason for this webcomics popularity.

This one isn't accessible. That's probably because it's based on a joke that, while you've seen it and that's great, most of us haven't and most of those don't even have the context to figure it out. And there's no way for us to find out except this forum, which the vast majority of your readership (and you) do not read. It's not googleable, it's not obviously part of anything except the vast field of political satire.

Please, when you're making a comic that not nearly everyone is expected to understand straight away, make sure there's something to latch onto so they can find out.

Sincerely, World.

This.

[cellocgw]

I'd like to apologize in advance for this post. Okay, here goes:

Actually if you want to go route of actually comparing Romney to either Mr. Burns or Charlie, then that begs the question who is comparable to Obama

I've seen this particular line of argument from quite a few rather intelligent people, but I have to point out - more English speakers use 'beg the question' with the literal sense of the word 'beg' ('to plead for') rather than to use it to refer to the specific logical fallacy. The fact is, both uses are proper because people at large have accepted the former usage as part of standard American English. If anything, using it in the former sense is more proper at this point, because hardly anyone is referring to the logical fallacy with the phrase.

Even if that were true, which I do not accept, it would still be wrong. The correct usage would be "That begs one to ask:" or "That begs for the following question to be asked:" . A sentence which starts "That begs the question {what,who,where,why} ..." is grammatical crap.

[Роберт]

"It's not accessible"
Maybe you didn't get it, but xkcd has only sometimes tries to do humor that everyone can get. Donner, party of 4, anyone? It's funny if you do get it, but he can't explain the joke or it isn't funny.

Not that I don't generally agree with you, but read the alt text in that one.

Yes, IIRC he did add that in later. I also linked to the sheep one.

[jbard]

I've managed to get at least something out of all XKCD comics. Even ones where I wasn't in on the reference, I just thought "Oh, what ever then" or I googled it.

But this one just fell totally flat. It's about something I follow somewhat closely, but there was just no reaction other than "huh?". The problem is that it feels like something that I should have been able to "get" but didn't because the parody is just not funny. Yes, those comparison lists can be stupid, but wouldn't it have been better to do it in a way that actually subverts them? Like actually make the quotes harder to attribute because they're so similar, then use some absurd mismatch of characters, therefore showing how stupid the format is?

Or if this is an attempt at absurdism, it failed too because it isn't immediately apparent that that is what it's trying to do. I just read it, saw the obvious difference in the comments, and thought I missed something.

[dp2]

Wow. People see "Romney" and suddenly everyone is on the alert. People don't get the reference, and suddenly it's not funny, whereas a joke based British culture would be used to demonstrate how ignorant Americans are.

The funniest part of the whole comic is the completely straight-faced answer key. But since we're bitching, I should add that "Is there even a difference?" is overkill. Funnier without it.

[dp2]

I'm pretty sure the point is that even though it's clear what Charlie Bucket has and has not said, I still don't fully believe that the others are from the Romney of today. (Though I don't find it hard to believe he HAS SAID those things in the past. *cough* flip-flop *cough*)

While changing one's public position on a matter of high principle to pander to an addled electorate is reprehensible, changing one's mind is not.

And yet a certain type of person finds any changing of any position by any politician defacto proof that they have done so based on pandering, not Bayesian reasoning.

That's the same reason for there being no real political discussion anymore. All we get is villification of the other person/party/philosophy. If you disagree with me, you're a Fox News viewer / Obama fan, and therefore objectively wrong about this and every other subject, and nothing you say will make me think differently.

People of every political stripe are afraid to admit they might be wrong about something, so discussion cannot be engaged in. Just dismiss anyone else and continue being "right".

[Rotherian]

But yeah I mostly don't get it because US politics as seen from a British perspective is completely confusing.

[snip]

Normally I can see both sides of any confrontation, but it's difficult for anyone with any intelligence at all to understand Republicans as anything other than ego-centric, anti-science bigots. There are exceptions - Gary Johnson (R) is one of the sanest politicians in the USA.

[snip]

1. Just so that I understand you correctly, are you implying that anyone that votes for a member of the Republican party - and if asked will identify themselves as Republican - is necessarily invariably egocentric, against science, and a bigot? Or, is it just within the realm of possibility that you were using a stereotype that doesn't apply equally to all members of the identified group. As someone who voted for Republicans consistently (because of the tendency of the Democrat party leaders, compared to their Republican party counterparts, to give smaller raises to the military, of which I was a member), I can tell you that I'm not very egocentric (I am aware of my significance, and that significance is very minor at best), I am not against science (although I didn't like my physics professor that much, I loved the subject), I am not a bigot (I don't think that race, religion, or gender has anything to do with the basic decency of a given person), and although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

2. You say there are exceptions, but then you only list one. (It may, perhaps, have sounded better if you wrote, "There are exceptions - one of which is Gary Johnson (R). He is one of the sanest politicians in the USA.")

3. You state that Gary Johnson is one of the sanest politicians in the USA. While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, without quantification, the only thing that the statement really says with any accuracy is that there is at least one politician that is less sane than Gary Johnson. Mathematically speaking, if 0 represents the least sane politician, G represents Gary Johnson, and 1 represents the most sane politician: 0 < G <= 1. It doesn't tell us where upon the graph he should be placed, just that it isn't at the origin.

[eran_rathan]

3. You state that Gary Johnson is one of the sanest politicians in the USA. While I don't necessarily disagree with the sentiment, without quantification, the only thing that the statement really says with any accuracy is that there is at least one politician that is less sane than Gary Johnson. Mathematically speaking, if 0 represents the least sane politician, G represents Gary Johnson, and 1 represents the most sane politician: 0 < G <= 1. It doesn't tell us where upon the graph he should be placed, just that it isn't at the origin.

Others I'd place on that list:
Susan Collins (0.7)
Jeanne Shaheen (0.9)
Angus King (0.9)
Bernie Sanders (0.7)
Santorum (0.001)
Newt (0.05)
The Ronpaul (0.01)
Jesse Ventura (0.001)

[J Thomas]

I despise Obama's policies, and this comic is shouting "Vote Obama!" by comparing Romney to a kid in a silly movie. Even so, I'd still be willing to laugh at good political humor. This ain't it.

You are oversensitive. Randall went very very easy on Romney, and I expect in coming months you might see some real criticism.

What does that have to do with Obama? I don't expect Obama to get tremendous support this time around. In 2008 he ran on "hope and change". We've had 4 years to see his hope and change. Now anybody who wants hope and change has a choice between Obama and Romney. Is it implausible that voter turnout might be low?

Meanwhile we seem to have a general agreement about what to do, with some disagreement about details. Imagine the US government was run like a business. "Sales are way down and the corporation is going deeper in debt. Over the next 30 years we owe more money to retirees than we can expect to have. There have been unwise suggestions that we should spend money to modernize our plants and create new products. But we are already in debt. What we will instead do is to cut production, and cut costs. We will eliminate spending on quality control and generally produce our product as cheaply as we can. Then our customers will have more money to spend on other products. Also we will sell for considerably less than cost. We can tell our employees that they probably won't get their pensions and they should save their money. Someday if business improves then we will decide whether to raise prices and pay down debt, or whether at that time it will be better to drop prices for the high-end luxury customers."

Really and truly, our legislators are not behaving as if they think the USA could become a going concern.

[toadpipe]

But yeah I mostly don't get it because US politics as seen from a British perspective is completely confusing.

[snip]

Normally I can see both sides of any confrontation, but it's difficult for anyone with any intelligence at all to understand Republicans as anything other than ego-centric, anti-science bigots. There are exceptions - Gary Johnson (R) is one of the sanest politicians in the USA.

[snip]

[snip]
1. Just so that I understand you correctly, are you implying that anyone that votes for a member of the Republican party - and if asked will identify themselves as Republican - is necessarily invariably egocentric, against science, and a bigot? Or, is it just within the realm of possibility that you were using a stereotype that doesn't apply equally to all members of the identified group.
[/snip]

No, just no. It is pathetically obvious that he is referring to republican politicians not republican supporters. Or, is it just possible that you are misunderstanding on purpose so that before outlining your own opinion so that you can be seen as taking a moral high ground?

[snip]
I can tell you that I'm not very egocentric (I am aware of my significance, and that significance is very minor at best), I am not against science (although I didn't like my physics professor that much, I loved the subject), I am not a bigot (I don't think that race, religion, or gender has anything to do with the basic decency of a given person), and although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)
[/snip]

You may not be this way, but every republican(politician) I've seen on the news for years (save Paul) states loudly that "abortion is wrong, should be illegal," "evolution is just a theory, should be taught at the same time as our religion," "I'm right, anyone that disagrees with me isn't just wrong, they are traitors."

I disagree with our imperialist military, but I'm forced to pay for it. Welcome to America, you don't get to choose what your taxes pay for.

[PhingerSpex]

Normally I can see both sides of any confrontation, but it's difficult for anyone with any intelligence at all to understand Republicans as anything other than ego-centric, anti-science bigot

Oh, you're not parodying anyone? You're really under the impression you're a tolerant understanding person; but you're also certain Republicans are coming from a position of stupid racist selfish bigotry with no other possible motivations?

No, it's not really a parody. More of a clumsy irony, drawing attention to how polarised American politics has become. I'm not even American, but the news coverage either way is so partisan that if you have any leanings one way or the other, whatever you end up watching either confirms your worst beliefs about "liberals" or "conservatives", or confirms your own rightness. American politics is not the politics of compromise and diplomacy, it's more like the adversarial legal system, where you either win or lose. Never mind what's best for the people or the country.

[ctristan]

I think a lot of the people who don't get it or didn't find it funny just haven't seen many of the political "quizzes" that get passed around all the time. They're just as absurd as this one is, but unfortunately get accepted as political commentary, just like many people are mistaking this comic as.

It might be unfortunate that he decided to parody the most recent one of Romney and Mr. Burns, as that's going to be a very sensitive issue for people. It probably would have been better if he would have done two of them, one for Romney and one for Obama, but then I think those same people would probably just compare the two and say he's being political because one isn't as "bad" as the other in their view.

[J Thomas]

[snip]

Normally I can see both sides of any confrontation, but it's difficult for anyone with any intelligence at all to understand Republicans as anything other than ego-centric, anti-science bigots. There are exceptions - Gary Johnson (R) is one of the sanest politicians in the USA.

[snip]

As someone who voted for Republicans consistently (because of the tendency of the Democrat party leaders, compared to their Republican party counterparts, to give smaller raises to the military, of which I was a member)

I want to affirm that it's entirely sane to vote for the politician who will give you the most money. This is why I suggest that we deny the vote to all US government employees including the military, and to every contractor who makes more than 50% of his money from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its income from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its money from corporations or employees of corporations that are denied the vote. And anyone who gets more than 50% of his money from Welfare.

These people are all biased toward getting the government to give them more money. They should not get the vote.

although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees. This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

[longnameislonger]

I disagree with our imperialist military, but I'm forced to pay for it. Welcome to America, you don't get to choose what your taxes pay for.

Not an accurate comparison. Military is a public good in its nature - that is, it is non-excludable and non-rivalrous in its consumption. If only the people who want military are paying for it, there would be a large group in society that would enjoy the benefits of the military without paying for it. Therefore, to have a military we probably will need everybody to chip in at gunpoint.

Abortions, on the other hand, are both excludable and rivalrous in consumption. You can exclude me from consuming abortions I have not paid for, and my consuming an abortion clinic's time and resources necessitates stopping some other pregnant man from consuming those resources.

Of course, your point may have been more to the effect of "yes, democracy sucks, get over it," and for that point you may have a stronger case. I would counter that we should perhaps limit our government only to public goods concerns such as these, in which case we will not have large segments of the population voting on things unrelated to, say, the military, and instead voting directly on those more critical functions.

[Klear]

I want to affirm that it's entirely sane to vote for the politician who will give you the most money. This is why I suggest that we deny the vote to all US government employees including the military, and to every contractor who makes more than 50% of his money from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its income from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its money from corporations or employees of corporations that are denied the vote. And anyone who gets more than 50% of his money from Welfare.

These people are all biased toward getting the government to give them more money. They should not get the vote.

Hurray for America! The land of freedom!

[longnameislonger]

That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees. This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

There is a 15% payroll tax, half of which is assessed directly to the employer. The employee pays the other half.

Furthermore, any tax that increases the cost of an employee is viewed, in total, as the cost of an employee to a business. Businesses will only pay so much for an employee (MC=MB, of course), so a tax which increases the cost of an employee will necessarily decrease the wage of said employee.

[PhingerSpex]

As someone who voted for Republicans consistently (because of the tendency of the Democrat party leaders, compared to their Republican party counterparts, to give smaller raises to the military, of which I was a member), I can tell you that I'm not very egocentric (I am aware of my significance, and that significance is very minor at best), I am not against science (although I didn't like my physics professor that much, I loved the subject), I am not a bigot (I don't think that race, religion, or gender has anything to do with the basic decency of a given person), and although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

I know my irony was clumsy, but is yours even more underplayed?
So you're not anti-science, anti-anything-to-do-with-race-religion-gender, not a rabid pro-lifer... in short, pretty liberal in your views. And yet you vote Republican, simply because of your own self-interest - they say they'd pay you more. Perhaps I should have stuck with my first draft, where instead of 'egocentric' I used 'selfish', it might have made the meaning clearer.

But I'm commenting from inside the whole polarisation of American politics, and political discourse. The debate is framed in such a way that I find it impossible to see both sides, that having a point of view of any flavour immediately generates feelings of association with one side or the other, and enmity towards the other side. That's what I find so interesting, and irritating at the same time. And what I so totally failed to express in my first post, that reads back like an obvious troll.

[Rotherian]

[snip]

Normally I can see both sides of any confrontation, but it's difficult for anyone with any intelligence at all to understand Republicans as anything other than ego-centric, anti-science bigots. There are exceptions - Gary Johnson (R) is one of the sanest politicians in the USA.

[snip]

As someone who voted for Republicans consistently (because of the tendency of the Democrat party leaders, compared to their Republican party counterparts, to give smaller raises to the military, of which I was a member)

I want to affirm that it's entirely sane to vote for the politician who will give you the most money. This is why I suggest that we deny the vote to all US government employees including the military, and to every contractor who makes more than 50% of his money from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its income from the US government, and to every employee of a corporation that makes more than 50% of its money from corporations or employees of corporations that are denied the vote. And anyone who gets more than 50% of his money from Welfare.

These people are all biased toward getting the government to give them more money. They should not get the vote.

although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees. This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

J Thomas, I wasn't talking about taxes. I have a daughter. If she gets a boyfriend, who then gets her pregnant, and he leaves her, if she asks me to pay for the abortion, my answer will be no, however, if she is 18 at the time of the hypothetical situation outlined at the beginning of this sentence and does not ask me to pay for the abortion, as she will be a legal adult, it isn't my business what she does with her body. I won't like it, but even though I am her parent, once she becomes an adult, her decisions (and the consequences of those decisions) are her own. Therefore, it is none of my business unless she expressly asks my opinion or asks me to pay for it. (Of course, if I have to choose between my daughter's life and the life of an unborn grandchild, I'll choose my daughter.)

Likewise, if any of my three children wants a nose job, if they are adults and don't ask me to pay for it, it is none of my concern. I don't ask my Dad's permission to grow my hair (facial or otherwise), and I don't expect my children - once they become adults - to ask me about matters that are purely personal preference.

[FlatPepsi]

Add me to the "Yuck someone got politics in my XKCD".

This is the most disappointing XKCD ever. Even if it is a parody of the Huffington Post slam piece, all this does to draw attention to it.
Not funny, not nerd relevant, not in keeping with XKCD's past.

Hey Randal, if you're going to go politicial, please pick on all sides. You'll lose half your readership by just picking on one side.

About all this one's good for is making a new record for forum posts.

[TheHaberdasher]

It's not funny. This is the first xkcd comic I've been genuinely disappointed in. Usually xkcd sucks makes me mad, but I'm predicting I'll agree with it on this one.

It's the first in a LONG time that I've laughed out loud at. It's absurd and mocks a stupid meme.

I completely agree. Even though I hadn't seen the meme before, I still loved the comic's randomness.

[Rotherian]

I know my irony was clumsy, but is yours even more underplayed?
So you're not anti-science, anti-anything-to-do-with-race-religion-gender, not a rabid pro-lifer... in short, pretty liberal in your views. And yet you vote Republican, simply because of your own self-interest - they say they'd pay you more. Perhaps I should have stuck with my first draft, where instead of 'egocentric' I used 'selfish', it might have made the meaning clearer.

But I'm commenting from inside the whole polarisation of American politics, and political discourse. The debate is framed in such a way that I find it impossible to see both sides, that having a point of view of any flavour immediately generates feelings of association with one side or the other, and enmity towards the other side. That's what I find so interesting, and irritating at the same time. And what I so totally failed to express in my first post, that reads back like an obvious troll.

Of course, I am selfish. Everyone I have met is selfish. If you really look deep enough inside yourself, there is likely a degree of selfishness. It is part of being a living organism. (Except perhaps mineral lifeforms, but I don't know enough about those to offer an opinion either way.)

Each breathe that I take is so that I can keep living; each bite of food that I consume is so that I can remain in existence. If I vote for a political party that has a better track record for giving raises (although past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future trends - there is no guarantee that the sun will be there tomorrow, but it is very likely that it will), it is so that I can provide for my family better.

However, I've also donated food to homeless shelters, volunteered to help teach underpriveleged children English, donated toys for children that otherwise would have none. I did this because I felt that I could make a little bit of a difference.

So, yes, I admit to being selfish.

[J Thomas]

That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees. This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

There is a 15% payroll tax, half of which is assessed directly to the employer. The employee pays the other half.

Furthermore, any tax that increases the cost of an employee is viewed, in total, as the cost of an employee to a business. Businesses will only pay so much for an employee (MC=MB, of course), so a tax which increases the cost of an employee will necessarily decrease the wage of said employee.

Yes, of course. If we reduced the employee payroll tax by 2.5% per year, increasing the employer tax at the same time, in 6 years employers would pay it all and would reduce raises etc enough to make up the difference.

The result would be somewhat reduced paperwork, both between employers and employees and between employees and IRS. Slightly simplified income taxes (with many more employees not owing any income tax at all). Minor economic benefits with no economic downside whatsoever.

But the major benefit would be an intangible. Lots of people who get upset about their income tax, who think that their income tax funds the government which does things they want it not to do, could then relax. We would no longer pretend that our employment taxes are our own money that the government spends.

[enumerated powers]

. . .
That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees. This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

You're not from around here (USA), are you?

It's not "Employment Tax", it's "Income Tax".

My employer does not enter into an employment contract with me which says: "You will get xx dollars after taxes".

At tax filing time, all my income (from whatever sources: employment, self-employment, gambling winnings, etc.) is added up and then I get to apply the process to it to deal with deductions, credits, etc. and I end up with an amount I owe, which I am required to pay. (State and local income taxes work similarly, with some differences in what types of income are taxable, what kinds of deductions and credits may apply, etc.) The fact that the government requires employers to assist in the collection process is not relevant (any more than the price of something in a state with sales tax is still the price the seller gets but the government requires merchants to assist in the tax collection over and above that price). I figure out how much the government got already (via employer-assisted collection) and I either pay whatever is still owed, or get a refund of whatever was over-withheld.

Ask a farmer or a small businessman whether income tax is a fiction.

. . . So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. . .

Now that is a pet peeve. "fiction"? Many think of it as "the government's money" being spent on this or that. Governments are not some sort of business - making widgets and selling them for profits which are then the "government's money" to be spent on government programs. Government has no money of its own - only that which it collects via taxes and fees (and borrows - which is a large part of the problem today).

If you have the patience for it, here's the excellent Essays on Political Economy by Frederic Bastiat.

[Klear]

Of course, I am selfish. Everyone I have met is selfish. If you really look deep enough inside yourself, there is likely a degree of selfishness. It is part of being a living organism. (Except perhaps mineral lifeforms, but I don't know enough about those to offer an opinion either way.)

Each breathe that I take is so that I can keep living; each bite of food that I consume is so that I can remain in existence. If I vote for a political party that has a better track record for giving raises (although past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future trends - there is no guarantee that the sun will be there tomorrow, but it is very likely that it will), it is so that I can provide for my family better.

However, I've also donated food to homeless shelters, volunteered to help teach underpriveleged children English, donated toys for children that otherwise would have none. I did this because I felt that I could make a little bit of a difference.

So, yes, I admit to being selfish.

Have a look at what's happening in Greece to see what's wrong with that attitude.

Edit: It's understandable, but also very wrong, if it is your only only criterion when voting.

[Nero Manser]

I came into this thread expecting an explanation for the joke, which I was having a bit of trouble understanding. (Still don't understand comic 35: Sheep (Which I can't link to, this being my first post (First Post! Woo!), but whatever.) What I got was a giant facefull of political flamewarring. Not entirely unexpected, but I saw some of the dumbest, most obviously wrong garbage I have ever seen on a forum in my life (congrats, I guess). I was so appalled by this superlative idiocy that I made an account. I was going to post an angry reply, viciously and brilliantly (in my mind, at least) skewering some of the ignorant, laughable scheiße I was reading.

And then I thought of an XKCD comic I remembered from long, long ago (in Internet time). Something about people being wrong on the internet.

[jonbly]

No funny? Not even a little bit? Aw...

[Rotherian]

Of course, I am selfish. Everyone I have met is selfish. If you really look deep enough inside yourself, there is likely a degree of selfishness. It is part of being a living organism. (Except perhaps mineral lifeforms, but I don't know enough about those to offer an opinion either way.)

Each breathe that I take is so that I can keep living; each bite of food that I consume is so that I can remain in existence. If I vote for a political party that has a better track record for giving raises (although past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future trends - there is no guarantee that the sun will be there tomorrow, but it is very likely that it will), it is so that I can provide for my family better.

However, I've also donated food to homeless shelters, volunteered to help teach underpriveleged children English, donated toys for children that otherwise would have none. I did this because I felt that I could make a little bit of a difference.

So, yes, I admit to being selfish.

Have a look at what's happening in Greece to see what's wrong with that attitude.

Edit: It's understandable, but also very wrong, if it is your only only criterion when voting.

It isn't any longer. I retired last year. However, I have a responsibility to ensure that my children and wife are fed, clothed, and have shelter. If one party will bring me closer to fulfilling that responsibility, since perfect candidates do not exist (merely ones that are really good at hiding the flaws), I can't consider that criterion a bad thing.

[dp2]

American politics is not the politics of compromise and diplomacy, it's more like the adversarial legal system, where you either win or lose. Never mind what's best for the people or the country.

That's very well put. That's exactly what I've tried to say and have not managed to do so clearly.

[shiki]

This comic is hilarious. Even without referencing the 'Burns' one, it's making fun of political ads that are biased one way or another. This one isn't biased at all. The joke is subtle, mainly because everyone is expecting something direct and funny in the quotes.

Part of the genius is that so many people are over analyzing it and looking for meaning that isn't there. It's just quotes. Unbiased quotes posing as the typical biased political ads. That's all it is. Lmao.

Half of the joke is the people on these forums, their responses, and all the energy put into arguing or trying to give meaning to it.

[J Thomas]

. . .
That brings up another pet peeve. We pretend that employment tax money comes from employees.

Spoiler:

This is a polite fiction which gets ruder every year. Your employer collects money from customers. Then he sends part of that money to the US government as employment taxes, and gives you another part of it. And everybody pretends the money he sent to the government belonged to you! It was never your money. You never had your fingers on it, and neither did your bank. It was entirely a transaction between your employer's customers, and your employer, and the government. They should stop pretending you pay those taxes. Turn it into an employment tax on employers, that has nothing to do with you except that you are the government's excuse for taxing your employer. The money will all come from customers anyway.

So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. You want to believe it's your money. But that's just lies. The IRS doesn't take that money from you. They only insist that you report it according to their directives, and punish you if you fail to do so. You do not belong in that loop.

You should not have to pay any employment taxes unless you are self-employed. And you should not get to vote if more than 50% of your money comes directly or indirectly from the US government.

You're not from around here (USA), are you?

It's not "Employment Tax", it's "Income Tax".

I'm talking only about the tax on the money you get from wages and salary, as an employee. Not the rest.

My employer does not enter into an employment contract with me which says: "You will get xx dollars after taxes".

At tax filing time, all my income (from whatever sources: employment, self-employment, gambling winnings, etc.) is added up and then I get to apply the process to it to deal with deductions, credits, etc. and I end up with an amount I owe, which I am required to pay.

Spoiler:

(State and local income taxes work similarly, with some differences in what types of income are taxable, what kinds of deductions and credits may apply, etc.) The fact that the government requires employers to assist in the collection process is not relevant (any more than the price of something in a state with sales tax is still the price the seller gets but the government requires merchants to assist in the tax collection over and above that price). I figure out how much the government got already (via employer-assisted collection) and I either pay whatever is still owed, or get a refund of whatever was over-withheld.

Sure. And I say to take wages and salaries out of that. Collect tax on employment income directly from employers, without all the deductions, credits, etc. Simpler. Easier. Better for employees.

Ask a farmer or a small businessman whether income tax is a fiction.

You're talking about people who are not employees.

. . . So you will stop believing this fiction that it's your money the government is spending. . .

Now that is a pet peeve. "fiction"? Many think of it as "the government's money" being spent on this or that. Governments are not some sort of business - making widgets and selling them for profits which are then the "government's money" to be spent on government programs. Government has no money of its own - only that which it collects via taxes and fees (and borrows - which is a large part of the problem today).

Governments collect money from people, or they invent new money which dilutes the value of all the money already out there. But government does not really collect money from employees. Ultimately, taxes paid directly by businesses are collected from customers. Tax a whole industry -- they add the tax into their prices and their customers pay it. So if the government taxes businesses instead of employees, the end result is the same, but the taxes are hidden inside the prices the businesses quote. People gripe about their income taxes. They don't know to gripe about the taxes hidden in the price of everything they buy. Do it this way and there's less griping.

If you have the patience for it, here's the excellent Essays on Political Economy by Frederic Bastiat.

I read part of that. It's amusing fairy-tales, but not something to take seriously.

I recommend Optimal Control and Estimation by Stengel. Part of it is available on Google books
http://books.google.com/books/about/Opt ... jPxqm7Lw0C
And it appears to be available for less than $18 from Walmart.

Here's Feedback Systems by Astrom and Murray. This link downloads the whole thing as a pdf file. I haven't looked at it in detail but it looks clear and simple.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... nzucGchCmQ

Economists ought to pay close attention to how feedback systems actually work. This idea hasn't gotten a lot of traction yet among economists, but it will.

[dp2]

... although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

Hold on there. I don't mean to single you out, but you said this thing that is often said, and I have to address it.

When people say "I'm against abortion but who am I to stop it?", it's like they're talking about body piercing or a nose job, as you suggested. It ignores the reason people think abortion is wrong. It isn't "You shouldn't do that to your body", it's "You shouldn't kill a human being". People try to avoid acknowledging that belief by calling it 'anti-choice' and otherwise ducking the question of whether a fetus is a human. You can argue that someone doesn't have the right to force their belief of what's human on other people. But then you'd have to apply that same thinking to other people who think other groups are less-than-human.

All this comes back to what I've said already in this thread. People don't want to listen to the other side of a debate. They villify them instead and assign sinister motivations -- Flipflopper! Communist! War on Women! War on Religion! -- rather than acknowledging what they're really thinking.

[DovW]

My (re-edited and re-reconsidered) 2c (that probably makes it 1/4c - because it's an incomplete flip-flip-flop ):

I suggest that there is a very direct meaning in xkcd 1044 - with some speculation.

Every quote that Randall uses is quoted at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney.

At the foot of that page are the following observations others have made on Romney:

"Well, I think you hit a reset button for the fall campaign. Everything changes. It’s almost like an Etch-A-Sketch. You can kind of shake it up and restart all over again.

Eric Fehrnstrom, CNN, quoted in Grier, Peter (21 March 2012), "Etch-A-Sketch: Can Mitt Romney shake off his aide's Mr. Potato Head gaffe?", Christian Science Monitor

You can't be a perfectly lubricated weather vane on the important issues of the day, whether it's Libya, whether it's the debt ceiling, whether it's the discussion around the Kasich bill in Ohio, where Gov. Romney has been missing in action in terms of showing any kind of leadership.

John Huntsman, CNN, quoted in Camia, Catalina (29 October 2011), "Huntsman slams Romney as a 'weather vane'", USA Today

That's one of the things that I like about him — because he’s been consistent since he changed his mind.

Christine O'Donnell, CNN, 2011-12-14, quoted in Lee, MJ (14 December 2011), "Christine O’Donnell: I like Mitt Romney's flip", Politico, retrieved on 2011-12-15"

Here's the way I (now) understand it ("This is the operative statement. The others are inoperative.").

“Nobody wants the prize more than young Charlie, but as his family is so poor that buying even one bar of chocolate is a treat, buying enough bars to find one of the five golden tickets is unlikely in the extreme.” – IMDB

Charlie Bucket was desperate to win the contest – in Charlie’s case it was his poverty that was the problem.

From Wikipedia: “Charlie... succumbs to temptation along with Grandpa Joe, as they stay behind in the Bubble Room and sample Fizzy Lifting Drinks. They begin floating skyward and are nearly sucked into a ceiling-mounted exhaust fan. To avoid this grisly fate, they burp repeatedly until they return to the ground. Wonka initially seems unaware of this incident... When Grandpa Joe returns to ask about Charlie's lifetime supply of chocolate, Wonka irritably reveals that Charlie had violated the contract by sampling the Fizzy Lifting Drinks, and thus forfeited his prize. Grandpa Joe vows to give Slugworth the gobstopper in revenge. Charlie, however, cannot bring himself to hurt Wonka and places the gobstopper on his desk...”

Charlie's misstep was his moral lapse of sampling the Fizzy Drink and he redeemed himself by doing the right thing and returning the gobstopper.

Mitt Romney’s problem, on the other hand is his wealth. With the exception of the snippet of the Medicare quote above, the other Romney quotes take positions that are safe for the independent voters who are critical to Romney’s presidential election chances.

The Medicare quote, however is a potentially dangerous one.

Mitt may have endangered his election chances with that one with too much frankness – unlike Charlie whose mistake was his moral lapse – Mitt, in the way of many politicians is endangered more, it seems by honesty than dishonesty - and politicians usually try to redeem such moments of rare frankness with obfuscation and doublespeak - a practice that many would say Romney seems to have made an "art" of.

So the irony is apparent - Mitt and Charlie are as alike as their quotes - the quest for lifetime chocolate was a contest of morality - whereas the quest for the White House sometimes seems to be reduced to a contest of vagueness and fudging.

[Help!!! – my posts here remind me of http://xkcd.com/386/]

[Rotherian]

... although I don't agree (in principle) with abortion, it is really none of my business what somebody else decides to do with their body - as long as I'm not being asked to pay for it. (I don't agree with rhinoplasty, in principle, either, but that is no more my business than abortion - unless I'm the one paying for it.)

Hold on there. I don't mean to single you out, but you said this thing that is often said, and I have to address it.

When people say "I'm against abortion but who am I to stop it?", it's like they're talking about body piercing or a nose job, as you suggested. It ignores the reason people think abortion is wrong. It isn't "You shouldn't do that to your body", it's "You shouldn't kill a human being". People try to avoid acknowledging that belief by calling it 'anti-choice' and otherwise ducking the question of whether a fetus is a human. You can argue that someone doesn't have the right to force their belief of what's human on other people. But then you'd have to apply that same thinking to other people who think other groups are less-than-human.

All this comes back to what I've said already in this thread. People don't want to listen to the other side of a debate. They villify them instead and assign sinister motivations -- Flipflopper! Communist! War on Women! War on Religion! -- rather than acknowledging what they're really thinking.

Ah, but there is the rub. Legally, there hasn't been a definition of "human being" since 1948. We can generally agree, though, that a human being is a person. However, in 1973, 410 US Code 113 stated that the 14th Amendment reference to "person" did not include the unborn. Later this was changed to a determination of viability (that is, the ability to survive outside the womb). Currently, the minimum gestation period for an unborn child to be considered a person is 24-28 weeks (6-7 months). Since "person" is roughly equivalent to human being, the subject of any abortion that takes place prior to the 6th month of gestation isn't legally a human being, and thus not afforded protection from induced death. 18 US Code 1111 para (a) defines murder as "the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." If the unborn child is legally considered a human being, then the termination of its life is murder. If not, it isn't.

Either way, what people, related to me or not, do is their decision, and murder or not, they have to bear the consequences (if any) of that decision. Either way, it isn't my business.

[Pfhorrest]

"Human" is a biological categorization. Something is human if it is genetically homo sapiens sapiens. That's the beginning and end of it.

"Person" is a philosophical and legal categorization, and not everything which is biologically human is legally a person. It is persons to whom rights and responsibilities etc are ascribed; not humans per se.

Some other, non-human entities are legally persons, and there is a lot of philosophical debate about what kinds of things really are persons (and as such deserve legal recognition as such). Corporations are a prominent example of non-humans legally recognized as persons (despite no philosophy of personhood considering them such, and even the law itself recognizing that as a fiction). But what about great apes, dolphins, etc? Some people reckon that they are persons and deserve recognition as such. More speculatively, what about transhumans (sufficiently modified humans who, pre-modification, would count as persons), artificial intelligences (programmed), artificial life (genetically engineered), extraterrestrial intelligences? If Data and Worf existed, would they not be persons just because they are not human?

There are lots of things that very probably are persons (if not legally recognized as such) despite not being humans; and notable things which are definitely human but whose personhood is in question or not legally recognized, like non-viable unborn human, and (IIRC) people in certain degrees of debilitation (e.g. a persistent vegetative state).

I am curious, if there was a legal definition of "human" until 1948, what was it, and was it distinguished from "person" or just a synonym?

[20andHeartless]

I am dismayed to see the pettiness of American politics rearing its ugly head at the onset of this election season. Though I knew it would...

If there are any conservatives out there reading xkcd, just be prepared for liberals to start writing off Romney as a ridiculous option flippantly, without ever engaging anyone in a real discussion. In my circles, the battle cries of "Bush is stupid" or "Obama, obviously" and the like have always been treated as the obvious truth. Questioning the group think is almost always met with the kind of disdain and disbelief you might expect when someone posits earnestly that 2+2=7.

Please, everyone, we need to revive and uphold reasonable discourse. Don't perpetuate the stereotype of the ignorant American by spouting off nonsense Ad Hominem attacks. It's not helpful, no matter what side of the political coin you fall on. "Clearly Romney is a silly candidate and Obama deserves to win". Really? Has your research been that exhaustive that you needn't even talk about the issues at all between now and November? There is a LOT to consider. Listen to what the reasonable voices on both sides have to say, not just the straw men.

[Eternal Density]

a) I don't know the reference or really care about American politics much so I don't see the funny side.
b) Please let me know when abortion is safe for both patients.

[SirMustapha]

This is extremely funny for people who follow politics regularly.

Yes, because all of them think exactly like you. For real.