Profile

  • Franklin
  • Member Since May 12th, 2010

Are you Franklin? If So, Login Here.

Recent Comments:

A Woman's Perspective on Younger Men {Asylum}

Oct 25th 2010 3:57PM Something like this?

Steely Dan is great because they marry ironic, culturally aware lyrics with deep sub-surface meaning to catchy pop hooks with a heavy jazz influence. They were everything todays hipsters want to be, only they were doing back in the 1970s, when it was still cool.

Should McDonald's Happy Meal Toys Be Banned? {Asylum}

Jun 1st 2010 2:32PM "... if you've seen "Super Size Me," you know the awful things a McDonald's-heavy diet can do to the human body."

No. If you've seen that film, all you've seen is Morgan Spurlock deliberately make himself sick by avoiding all physical activity while disingenuously placing all the blame on his diet.

Which Would You Choose: Neil Gaiman or a Football Stadium? {ComicsAlliance}

May 12th 2010 8:10PM "Of course the difficulty with arts, entertainment, and sports is that there is no way to quantify their value."

Of course there is; you charge admission. I'd gladly pay $50 to hear Gaiman speak. (I might pay more or I might not, but I'm not giving away my entire consumer surplus.) Oh, I know some people will claim there is value in just knowing that something is there, even if they don't patronize it themselves, but those people should put up or shut up.

And I know others will say restaurants and hotels benefit from, for example, a sports stadium. But so what? Why are taxpayers expected to subsidize hotels and restaurants? And how is that any different than a restaurant befitting if, say, a movie theater opens next door? Should taxpayers be in the business of subsidizing movie theaters so as to indirectly subsidize restaurants?

It would be less expensive just to subsidize the restaurant directly, which then begs the question of why you're subsidizing a restaurant that apparently not enough people think is worth patronizing in the first place.