The once-great actor Clint Eastwood achieved new fame August 30 at the GOP convention, by losing a debate against an empty chair. Watch the funniest excerpt if you like, though it may be too painful to watch whether you like Eastwood or not.
I recognize that. It can take years to learn that Athens Pizza is just spaghetti sauce on a lump of dough, while Mama Theresa’s makes an amazing Pizza Margherita and you really need to stand in line during the season when Salerno’s has its fresh plum tomato pies.
Going to someplace standardized is much easier when you just want a pizza.
I’ve never had a Pizza Margherita. Sounds a little doughy for my taste in cocktails.
Now, a Margherita Pizza is a thing of wonder!
It wasn’t until I was in Italy that I realized how good those were -
Thanks for the options.
Your first alternative asks me to defend a strawman – I never said he had “no choice.” What would that mean – that armed men were standing by with sniper rifles, ready to end his life in an instant if he failed to raise prices?
My gripe is closest to your second alternative: that making this particular business decision does not define him as a “greedy soulless expletive.” But you’ve preemptively declared that, by definition, it does. That’s why I asked if there were any objective rules associated with the characterization or if it was simply a matter of opinion. Since the clear answer back is that it’s a matter of opinion, and since your opinion is likely to garner much support on this board, I didn’t think I had anything else to add.
There is – possibly – a fruitful debate lurking in here with respect to the proper role of government. I believe that individual generosity of spirit and material aid is a wonderful thing; I wouldn’t have spent the hours in charitable labor that I have if I felt otherwise. But I also believe it’s not, generally, the proper role of government to compel charity; I think charity should spring from the heart, not the regulatory abyss.
Moreover, and again in my personal opinion only, we should not call someone greedy merely because he fails to extend charity. Charity is not a secular obligation. A person is greedy, in my opinion, when he seeks more than what he’s entitled to. A person who takes what he’s entitled to, no more, and fails to give to charity is not greedy, as I would use the word.
But that’s a matter of opinion, and nothing more.
Bricker for the win!
I like pepperoni, onions and roasted red peppers.
With tons of anchovies!
Not necessarily. Askthepizzaguy now has the opportunity to show us that that is not Bricker’s actual opinion. I think.
I happen to believe that the Papa John’s guy is a greedy soulless expletive because he’s perfectly willing to spend a quarter million dollars on a POS Camaro that he once owned, but he pisses, moans, and apparently lies about the cost of providing affordable health care to his employees; which, according to those hippie one-world socialists over at Forbes magazine, will be just a nickel per pizza.
Yup. That’s your opinion.
Bricker states:
A person is greedy, in my opinion, when he seeks more than what he’s entitled to.
If so the argument shifts to what is a person entitled to, or in other words, that healthcare is in fact an entitlement and that evil pizza CEO man is preventing his employees from getting what is rightfully theirs.
Not the way you phrased it. Evil CEO doesn’t necessarily get any more healthcare himself because he’s cutting back hours for his employees. One might just as well argue that you and are greedy fucks because we are not chipping in to help the employees get their healthcare, assuming we could afford to do so (I could).
If there is one pie, and I eat half it it, leaving half for the rest of you guys, I’m probably a greedy fuck. But the CEO’s actions do not limit the amount of healthcare for the rest of us. We’re just talking about how best to help people who don’t have it get it. My position has always been that if we, as a society, think everyone should have healthcare, then we as a society should pay for it (that through the general tax fund we all participate in). We shouldn’t say that you can’t hire someone unless you are willing to pay for his healthcare. That’s an undue burden on particular individuals.
Can’t it also be a matter of definition?
[QUOTE=merriam-webster]
a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=dictionary.com]
excessive or rapacious desire, especially for wealth or possessions.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thefreedictionary]
excessive desire, as for wealth or power
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=wikipedia]
Greed is the inordinate desire to possess wealth, goods, or objects of abstract value with the intention to keep it for one’s self, far beyond the dictates of basic survival and comfort.
[/QUOTE]
Words mean things, and it’s pretty clear that “greed” means either wanting more than is needed for survival, or wanting more than is normal. An excessive degree of desire for material wealth, if you will.
John Schnatter, lives on a palatial estate and has a fleet of cars, among other examples of material excess. He is clearly motivated by greed, as it’s defined above.
Warren Buffet lives in a small house in Omaha, gets driven around in sedate Town Car, and eats at Gorat’s steak house once a week. I don’t know what motivates him, but it’s not greed.
To add, I think a more complex definition of greed as a character flaw would be along the lines of, “Someone who puts material wealth ahead of personal relationships and long-term happiness.” In other words, if you take what you’re entitled to, but it hurts you in the long run, that’s greedy, even though you were entitled to it.
To steal John Mace’s example, if I bring a pie to a party to share with my friends, and then end up making an ass of myself by eating half of it and making them share the rest, I’m a greedy fuck. I’ve put short-term material gain over long-term friendship. Was I entitled to eat the pie? Sure, I made it, I brought it, it was my pie to do as I wished. Bricker wouldn’t call that greed?
Maybe John Schnatter will end up like the guy at the end of There Will Be Blood.
If all he is incurring is a business expense which he will cover with a modest increase in the price of pizzas then no, he would not be a “greedy soulless expletive.”
However, when he bitches and moans about it, uses it as a pretext to raise pizza prices even more than he needs to in order to “cover costs”, and actively is planning ways to reduce employee hours so he does not have to give them healthcare insurance then yes, that makes him a “greedy soulless expletive.”
Funny thing is, for all his bitching about Obama, he is a lot wealthier today then when Obama took office. In January 2008 his share prices were around $21. Now it is at around $49/share. Hard to see how horrible the Obama administration has been for his company.
No.
But disturbing. Your post seems to suggest that you believe both that healthcare is an entitlement and that pizza CEO are required to provide that entitlement to their employees. I don’t believe that’s the law. We can debate how much healthcare is an entitlement, but I think it’s fair to say that after this election, the voice of the people can be fairly interpreted as agreeing with the general idea that tax dollars should fund healthcare costs in some way.
But neither the people, nor their elected representatives, have mandated that bosses pay for employees’ health care. Have they?
“I drink your garlic dipping sauce! I DRINK IT UP!”
(Actually, you left it a bit ambiguous which guy you’re talking about…)
I’m going to pretend I did that intentionally in order to be deep.
Why must we sully the good name of pizza like this?
No. I recognize that opinions may differ. If you take what you’re entitled to, but it hurts you in the long run, you may be unwise, but not greedy, at least as I picture the word.
It’s a quibble. I agree that using the word in the way you’re doing is not unheard of.
I just don’t like the concept creep – we seem to be slouching towards an ideal that everyone should have the same amount of stuff, and any desire by Amy to better her house, car, or bank account above Stella, Ruby, and Annette is greedy; the idea seems to be that Amy should be content to have what everyone else has, or some predefined limit that constitutes “enough.” She has a car; two cars is greedy.
In my view, that’s not a good use of the word.
It’s a rather biblical use of the word, wouldn’t you agree? I don’t think we’re slouching towards that definition, I think we’re slouching away from it.