Why are distance runners such bleeding hearts?

what is a bleeding heart? i heard it before but dont know what it means

- Bleeding heart in the sense of "person excessively sympathetic" (esp. toward those the writer deems not to deserve it) is first attested 1958 according to OED, but said by many to have been popularized with ref. to liberals (esp. Eleanor Roosevelt) in 1930s by newspaper columnist Westbrook Pegler (1894-1969), though quotations are wanting. Bleeding in a fig. sense of "generous" is from late 16c., but the exact image here may be of the "bleeding heart of Jesus."

From the "Online Etymology Dictionary"

Interesting that all you good christian republicans would use a term coming from Jesus to describe us "atheist statists." I guess we should thank you for the compliment.

it takes what? says: Private citizens have a moral obligation to help their fellow citizens, whether the govt deems it appropriate or not. In Christianity, its called alms, or charity. The Jews and Muslims, along with all the polytheistic traditions, have deep commitments to charity and assisting the less-fortunate.

This is called interdependence and by leaving it up to the pharmaceutical companies et al it won't happen. Your utopia might actually work if we lived in a non-capitalist society. What do you think would happen if we cut a program like the FDA? Do you really believe that Pfizer or Merck would give a shit about the stability of their drugs? Government protection is requisite in a society in which making money is top priority. You can talk about downsizing government all you want, but the republicans (and many democrats) don't even consider who is going to hold big business accountable. They seem to only care about subsidizing the companies in which they have a substantial stake in.

I won't even get started on community service block grants and welfare programs. That money just helps lazy people anyway.

Where the hell do you live? The 1800's? We live in a country that is roughly geographically based on socio-economical status. Think suburbia. People fight tooth and nail to avoid living in your so-called communities that support each other through thier "charity." Explain to me where the financial support will come from for these areas that have little to no wealth in the first place.

I love how you pull out your usual "our media and academic elites" trump card to make some non-existant point, but earlier you state, "Government is not required for a community to exist; govt is a necessary evil which we tolerate only to adjudicate transgressions (harm)(thanks for the translation) between individuals." This is pure academic BS, and no society has been able to exist this way since a time that you believe never occured.

I won't even get started on community service block grants and welfare programs. That money just helps lazy people anyway.

A young man walked into the local welfare office, marched straight up to the counter and said, "Hi, I hate drawing welfare. I would really rather find a job."

The man behind the counter replied, "Your timing is amazing. We've just got a listing from a very wealthy man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nympho daughter. You'll have to drive around in a big black Mercedes, but the suits, shirts, and ties are provided. Because of the long hours of this job, meals will also be provided and you will also be required to escort the young lady on her overseas holidays. The salary package is $200,000 a year."

The young man said, "You're bullshitting me man!"

The man behind the counter said, "Well, you started it!"

trackhead wrote:

Did You Know?

The United States outspends the combined military budgets of all potential enemies combined 18 fold.

******************************

So, if you cannot afford basic services, you do not deserve them?

And we should outfund them. We lack the population to be a superpower, and technology is what makes us strong. My brother is in the Army, and he had an interesting insight into warfare, US-style: "We have the best infantry in the world, as long as they are supplied." If we don't have all our techno-gadgets that help us out, we're screwed. To keep our gadgets better than everyone else's requires that we spend money on it. Lots and lots of it.

As far as basic services, I would say two things: first, if you insulate "basic services" (by which I assume you mean food, water, healthcare) from the demands of the free market, then the prices will NEVER be reasonable. You just don't have any incentive to innovate & make a cheaper product. Food and water is so cheap in the US that poor people are fatter, and health care could be cheap if the gov't would get out of the system and let it be subject to the rigors of the market.

Second, those unable to take care of themselves should be taken care of. But that is for private society to do, what Tocqueville called "civil associations" that aim to help out their fellow man with VOLUNTARY support. People will give if there is a need (viz. Tsunami relief), but if the gov't pays for it, they take on the Scrooge attitude: "Aren't there prisons and poorhouses?"

On Republicans: yes, the current administration sucks economically. They ought to cut taxes even more, stop caving on issues like senior drug benefits, etc; radically privatize social security such that it is entirely phased out over the next 50 years, cut all "coporate welfare," and just take care of defense and foreign policy. Education, HUD, welfare, et al, should be the responsibility of individual states and/or cities.

No one would by a drug company's products if they didn't work. No one would buy rotten milk, when the rival company offers fresh milk.

The market regulates itself far better than the government regulates it.

How do you starve a man on welfare?

Hide his food stamps under his work boots!!!!

Thank you, thank you, goodnite.

Dude, I voted against Bush, but you need to chill out. I mean you damn liberals are always complaining that everyone else is a racist, hates poor people, wants to repress women and destroy the environment. Your people skills must be terrible. And you care WAY too much. If you people actually spent your time HELPING OTHERS instead of complaining about Republicans and whatnot then maybe there wouldn\'t be so many problems.

Everyone seems so blinded; they have to either HATE Republicans or Democrats, why can\'t we all just realize that they pretty much both suck (the parties as a whole) but they do a good job of keeping each other in check. Like those foreigners; I don\'t really care if some other country tried to stick its nose in our business, so why do they get so worked up when our government does? And it is annoying, they start using our language and buy our products and then complain that the US is infiltrating their culture! I don\'t want to travel halfway around the world and find another America, when I visit (or live in) another country I want to experience something new. People need to open their eyes and accept things, we are all citizens of a world, who cares what your passport says.

Look, Bush is far from being a \"great\" president and I would replace him right now if I could. But I think he could be doing a lot worse and people need to cut him some slack (the liberals; the conservatives have to quit acting like he\'s the greatest thing since sliced bread). And as far as Iraq, I\'m not a big fan of killing period (whether it concerns abortion or the death penatly; I mean isn\'t that funny, one party is pro-abortion anti-death penalty while the other is pro-death penalty anti-abortion?) so I\'d prefer we kinda got out of there. Let them figure it out! I think the US (or any government\'s) role in foreign affairs should be more or less limited to supplying medical or relief aid and defending our allies when they\'ve been attacked by another state. Fortunately I was a hard science major or I would\'ve gone nuts in school.

And as far as poor people, I definitely think something needs to be done considering the number of vastly rich people. Many are where they are due to circumstance, but that doesn\'t mean that a lot haven\'t slacked off and just resigned themselves to a life of poverty.

Well done, e-!

Best post I have seen on here for a long time.

A+

Thought police, do you realy think you are making a point with that post?

E wrote:

This is called interdependence and by leaving it up to the pharmaceutical companies et al it won't happen. Your utopia might actually work if we lived in a non-capitalist society. What do you think would happen if we cut a program like the FDA? Do you really believe that Pfizer or Merck would give a shit about the stability of their drugs? Government protection is requisite in a society in which making money is top priority. .

Interesting. i know many a repub that thinks just THAT: that the FDA should be cut (along with the EPA), and that as millions died from either bad unregulated drugs or pollution, eventually the consumer (those still around) would smarten up and not support those companies that were killing people, and the companies would go under. Pure capitalism is a beautiful thing. (well some particularly naive Libertarians think the conscience of these companies would stop them from going too overboard in harming that public. Hear that?? Their CONSCIENCE!! Ha! Oh, the innocence of youth......)

Oh yeah, while we are at it, sack the SEC too, because all they do is get in the way of business, and slow down the economy (so there would be 50 Enrons without the SEC, so be it.......ANY gov't restriction or regulation is EVIL!!!!).

Gov't is EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVIL......

(and now I partly understand why they like Bush, because he doesn't really believe in the need for an independent EPA either, and that is why under him the EPA doesn't do what it's name would suggest, ie, PROTECT the Environment. No, it should be call the PPA, the POLLUTER Protection Agency. That would be way more accurate)

let's see here... wrote:

The market regulates itself far better than the government regulates it.

Which is why I'm holding onto my Macintosh computer and my BetaMax video player. I know the market forces will allow these superior products to dominate the marketplace once the gov't gets their filthy hands off it.

This might come as shock to some, but wejo also would qualify as a bleeding heart--look at how many of these tree huggers he allows to post here "over and over again".

Then why are YOU getting worked up about most post. Right back at you.............relax.

Let's see, "damn liberals'.....YOUR people skills are just fine though.

And I see you have the Democratic stereotypes (some of which are true) down pat. So.....let's play your little game. I will repsond with.

"You damn Conservatives are always complaining that everyone else is lazy and against white males, hates rich people, wants to repress big buissines and is a bleeding heart tree-hugger. Your people skills must be terrible. And you care WAY too much. If you people actually spent your time HELPING OTHERS [for instance, all those IRAQI people you love soooooo much, you know, with their ink-stained fingers? C'mon, go to F'n Iraq and HELP THEM if you think it is so worthwhile) instead of complaining about Democrats and whatnot then maybe there wouldn't be so many problems. Try THAT on for size.

AMEN.

I will stop there. You make too much sense on that point alone for me to argue with you about anything else. Glad to see that you are a mostly intelligent person.

Of course people won't by drugs with poor efficacy. However, what is going to stop Merck from putting out a drug that has been proven to cause heart attack? They obviously didn't when they sold Vioxx. Even worse when these drugs are not regulated by the FDA, the consumers have no idea of of the potential dangers because they may or may not be tested. Do you think Merck would have taken Vioxx off the market had the FDA not stepped in?

Your statement only reflects how ignorant you are to the facts regarding the pharmaceutical industry.

Well, after Enron happens, investors would demand certain steps be taken to ensure honesty in future accounting. Companies that refused would go under. Investors aren't stupid, and they only need to get burned once to figure out a solution.Same with drugs/foods: consumers would demand special testing from non-interested groups before they would buy it. The market corrects its past errors fairly well.

Now, as regards the environment...I can almost justify gov't intervention because, frequently, we don't get a second chance to make it like it was before. And some of the areas that have been damaged by industry are heartbreaking. I love backpacking and hiking, and it kills me to see land so notoriously abused.

That said, bear in mind that the developing countries with the worst economic records are communist ones. US pipelines in the arctic have valves every three miles so that when there is a leak in the pipe, they can cut off oil from behind and in front from leaking out. In Siberia, they had the same valves every 30 miles. The USSR pumped out more crude oil onto the Siberian tundra EVERY DAY than the entire Exxon Valdez spill. In some cities in the former Soviet block, as little as 3% of the water was suitable for industrial, let alone potable, use. The free market isn't perfect by any means, but it does beat the alternatives.

*buy

most distance runners ive ever come across are very conservative. i dont know where you got this idea that they were liberal.