Biker Killed by Mountain Lion



> That is the way it is done here in Minnesota too. You will
> never see a homeless person living on the streets in any
> small town.

It's sort like economy of scale. A small town probably won't
build a soup kitchen or rescue mission for just one person.

> Nevertheless, homelessness should not be permitted. We
> humans require housing. We are not wild animals.

Well.. to introduce some perspective here... the Central
California indians were called Digger Indians. They lived
(generally) in peace with one another, they had plenty to
eat (elk, deer, beaver, etc, wild rice, acorns, tules,
pinyon nuts, fish, frogs, birds, tubers...). They were
described as being the healthiest bunch of indians the early
explorers had seen. The mild climate allowed them to live in
modest dwellings made of brush in the warm months. In the
winter they would dig a hole, like the forts we built as
kids, then cover them with a low teepee shape of logs and
stuff, then piled dirt on top. When the explorers arrived
the indians appeared to be popping out of the ground! Some
of them built buildings of tules. They would bind them up
into bundles, then bind those up into small houses. They
would weave mats for the floors and walls out of tules,
sedges and rushes.

But I digress.. I wanted to say that though people CAN
easily build cheap housing [2] that will meet their needs in
many parts of the country, OUR society has raised the ante
to the extent that we are outlawing poor people. The cost
and complexity of being 'middle-class' keeps going up. Our
environmental laws, as much as I cherish them, and our
building codes and zoning.. prevent people from throwing up
a shelter to help keep body and soul together.

I predict that you won't be as disturbed by this as myself,
but the country is getting less and less free. I have always
felt that a FREE citizen, ala Thoreau, should be able to
live a counter-culture life. I am NOT talking about being a
burden, like a beggar or thief, I'm talking about rejecting
the value system itself, and building a self-sustaining life
apart from it. Like hippies in communes? Well, sure, but
there is probably an infinite number of other ways to live.
But our laws are seemingly designed to prevent that, to in
effect, make it illegal to do anything but produce and
consume which is what fuels our profligate way of life.

I am not defending a homeless guys right(?) to **** and
sleep wherever he wants, etc, but freedom of choice. Our
entire system seems designed to make sure it is the ONLY
system. And it is a non-sustainable system. For example, our
taxation system makes it necessary for one to take part in
society to earn money to pay for things one may never use
and not value. Like.. well, I don't know, like maybe bus
service, or welfare, or a baseball stadium (I hate baseball
but I have to pay for our stinkin' stadium), or public
school system. Yeah, I can argue their merits too.. but the
point is, it is becoming illegal to be poor or to have a
value system to far removed from that of the masses.

Idaho county, ID where I once lived, at one time had no
building code. OK, there were some shacks there. I don't
care. I was interested in buying a small piece of land and
building a wooden teepee to live in. So who would I be
hurting? I don't know. "Oh, but you see, houses need to
adhere to code so they will be sanitary and safe". Well, I
don't care for the government protecting me by taking my
rights. "Well, if you don't value these things, the building
code will guarantee to the next resident in the house that
it is safe". I DON'T CARE about any next resident, they
ain't gonna be no 'next resident'. I wanna build my OWN
crooked little house out of crooked little scraps of wood
[1], with my crooked little brace & bit, with a home-made
woodstove in it. And I'll burn the dang thing down when I'm
done with it!

> Anyone who could not see to their own housing should be
> institutionalized in public housing, hospitals or jails

Read the paragraphs above, one more time.

> Parts of downtown Seattle are starting to look like
> Calcutta with all the homeless people

Starting? I have some photos I took there.. about 30 years
ago.. of a buncha homeless folk wandering the streets.

[1] And I'd kinda like to build a Navaho type of lodge, a
hogan, too.. I'll bet it would be snug in the winter.
Bring a few sticks for the fire, and maybe a fish, some
nuts or berries or tubers for the stew, and a good yarn
or too, and you can come visit a while. Uh, this isn't
a hypothetical lifestyle to me as I have spent many
winter evenings sitting talking with friends around a
small wood fire in a raggedy hut. I grew up with/around
indians, Paiute (means fly-eaters), and Tulababul.

[2] A hippy hut I'd like to build someplace: build a
circular frame of flexible branches shaped like a
wickiup, tied together at the top center. Then dip rags
in a slurry of portland cement, and drape them over the
frame to make a skin, maybe a couple of layers. Am told
it yields a very functional house very fast, winter-
proof and cheap.
 
> I thought this was a thread about dealing with a killer
> mountain lion, and was going to contribute by suggesting a
> .44 magnum. But now I see it's on

> which is a different way to skin the cat.

I think waay back a ways I said that I bought a .357
magnum, in large part cuz of mtn lions. And bears, but
less so. Experts have told me that with some loads
available for my gun (S&W Model Stainless 686 7-shot, 4"
barrel) it will be pert near as powerful as a .44 magnum.
But I don't want a .44 magnum. Can't load it up alla the
way cuz the recoil is so dang bad the bullets get loosened
and knocked right out of the cartridge case. But I think
this was an isolated incident.
 
> I am NOT talking about being a burden, like a beggar or
> thief, I'm talking about rejecting the value system
> itself, and building a self-sustaining life apart from it.
> Like hippies in communes?

We're primitive as can be...

The Manson family.
 
We do not allow the rich anything. They take it. They become
lawyers, we chose between 2 choices usually, they get
elected and if they retain their morales, they accomplish
nothing, else they lose them and accomplish a lot, usually
to their collective benefit. I say lawyers as most
politicians have a law background.

Way back in ancient history, the collective legislators were
a conglomeration of shop keepers, farmers, and other types.
They did what they had to do in Washington (formerly
Philadelphia) and went home to earn their keep. Then, the
people decided the federal gov't should do more... and more
and more.... and we gave up our rights and responsibilities
to the feds and wound up where we are today.... a lot of the
population said 'let the feds do it' and the feds got all
the power...

That happens when you don't want to do things for
yourself...

Arne

=====================
"GeoB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We allow the rich their behaviour because the system is
> run by thieves and crooks.
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ... It has often been remarked that the very poor and
> > the very rich have the same disgusting and immoral
> > behavior. Apparently the extremes meet and it is
> > essentially the middle class which is the repository of
> > all morality. But is it too much money or too little
> > money that causes reprehensible behavior or is it rather
> > something else entirely?
> >
> > We will allow the very rich their behavior because it
> > seldom directly effects our lives unlike the behavior of
> > the poor (the homeless). It is the same with white
> > collar crime versus street crime. One only affects us
> > highly indirectly whereas the other effects us directly
> > (assault and robbery)....
>
> I should point out here that Mr. Dolan has stated in the
> past that he does not have much of an understanding of
> economics. If he did, he would not make the above
> statements.
>
> As for one example, how were all the middle aged, mid-
> level white collar Enron employees affected when upper
> management bailed out before the company collapsed, while
> they lost almost all of their retirement savings?
>
> Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

You make my point for me. Better to lose your money than to
lose your life. White collar crime will not normally take
your life. Street crime can easily do that, or at the
minimum, put you in the hospital.

I do not believe that anyone has much of an understanding of
economics and that includes you too. But I go further and
include most professional economists in that category (know
nothings). Whenever Mr. Reich (former Labor Secretary to
President Clinton and now back at Harvard where he belongs
and can do less damage) speaks on the TV about how the
economy should be managed, I think no wonder the country is
always in such a mess. We should all go back to school and
study the business cycle and forget about trying to manage
the economy. We are starting to look on our Presidents as
primarily managers of the economy. How absurd!

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"skip" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
> > Sounds like maybe you have been doing the Bike Florida
> > ride or that other one that goes by the name of Safari.
>
> Actually I was kayak camping and didn't take a bike along
> this time. I have in the past combined paddling and biking
> rides out of Live Oak Florida. Bike to the put in, rent a
> canoe, have the bike shuttled to the take out and then
> bike back to camp when I'm done. The canoe gets shuttled
> back to the put in point. Neat deal.

I once tried to combine biking with hiking on a cross
country tour I was doing. What a fiasco that was! I was so
exhausted from the biking that when I took a day off to do
some hiking in the mountains, I found that I couldn't even
get out of my tent and I rested for the entire day. I never
did get any hiking accomplished. The moral of the story for
me is just do one thing at a time. [...]

> > OK, but don't vote for Nader if it looks like Kerry
> > could win. I think Pennsylvania is a going to be
> > critical state along with Ohio. Here in Minnesota, I
> > wouldn't have to vote at all as the idiots here go Dem
> > no matter what jackass the party comes up with. We are
> > like Massachusetts that way.
>
> I live in Tennessee. Kerry won't win here. Our former
> senator, vice president, and pal Al couldn't even carry
> the state in the last go around.

I guess I had you confused with some other rational soul on
this newsgroup who lives in PA. Tennessee will surely go for
Bush, so it doesn't matter who you decide to vote for same
as me. You and I should living in Ohio where we could
possibly make a difference. Ah, the joys of the electoral
college! [...]

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
[email protected] (GeoB) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> > We will allow the very rich their behavior because
> <snip>
> > One only affects us highly indirectly whereas the other
> > effects us directly (assault and robbery).
>
> We allow the rich their behavior because the system is run
> by thieves and crooks. The big guys take care of each
> other cuz they never know when it will be *themselves*
> under indictment or incarceration.
>
> I lost way into the $ix figure$ (an inheritance) cuz of
> Enron. I can't find words to express my 'disappointment'
> with these guys.
>
> In my opinion, crooked politicians and white-collar crime
> people actually hurt more people in a worse way, although
> granted it is more indirect. Some people strike blows to
> at our personal wealth, but politicians destroy the very
> system that enables us to be a free people. They should be
> hung for treason.
>
> I can't believe how high-profile crooks 'negotiate' a
> sentence with the justice system! Ha! How much negotiating
> do you suppose a judge would do with me? Buncha crooks.

The question for me is should I allow GeoB to get to the
right of me?

I hate and despise crooks and thieves worse than anyone.
That is the reason why I would never put one penny of mine
into the stock market (not that I have many pennies with
which to do that anyway). I have always thought it would be
better to go to the races or the casinos and at least have
some fun while you are losing your money. No, I do not trust
anyone to know how to manage my small amount of money that
keeps me out of the poor house. So it sits in a bank drawing
absolutely no interest and I am getting poorer and poorer
with each passing year. If I live too long I will surely end
up in the poor house.

GeoB and I are on the same page here, but I still maintain
it is better to be robbed by white collar thieves than to be
robbed by street thugs. The first way you will lose your
money, the second way you will not only lose your money but
maybe end up in the hospital or worse.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ... You make my point for me. Better to lose your money
> than to lose your life. White collar crime will not
> normally take your life....

And neither will most other crime - especially “crimes” that
occur between consenting adults [1].

Of course, the worst white-collar crimes have been legal or
only involve civil penalties at the worst. This is what
happens when accepting campaign contributions from the rich
is the only way most politicians can get elected to office.

[1] It is of course; these “crimes” that make up the bulk of
the current US prison population.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
 
[email protected] (GeoB) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

[...]

> > Nevertheless, homelessness should not be permitted. We
> > humans require housing. We are not wild animals.
>
> Well.. to introduce some perspective here... the Central
> California Indians were called Digger Indians. They lived
> (generally) in peace with one another, they had plenty to
> eat (elk, deer, beaver, etc, wild rice, acorns, tules,
> pinyon nuts, fish, frogs, birds, tubers...). They were
> described as being the healthiest bunch of Indians the
> early explorers had seen. The mild climate allowed them to
> live in modest dwellings made of brush in the warm months.
> In the winter they would dig a hole, like the forts we
> built as kids, then cover them with a low tepee shape of
> logs and stuff, then piled dirt on top. When the explorers
> arrived the Indians appeared to be popping out of the
> ground! Some of them built buildings of tules. They would
> bind them up into bundles, then bind those up into small
> houses. They would weave mats for the floors and walls out
> of tules, sedges and rushes.
>
> But I digress.. I wanted to say that though people CAN
> easily build cheap housing [2] that will meet their needs
> in many parts of the country, OUR society has raised the
> ante to the extent that we are outlawing poor people. The
> cost and complexity of being 'middle-class' keeps going
> up. Our environmental laws, as much as I cherish them, and
> our building codes and zoning.. prevent people from
> throwing up a shelter to help keep body and soul together.

GeoB, I couldn't agree with you more! It is the damn cost of
housing that is ruining everything in this country. All the
metros are screwed up because it is not possible to live
cheaply in them anymore and no one here has more sympathy
for the plight of the working poor than do
I. I have posted previously that I use to pay rent for a
furnished room for myself in any city in the country 50
years ago for about $25. a month. Then I get feed back
that the equivalent now would cost me $200. to $300. a
month. No wonder we have a homeless problem in our
large cities.

However, the solution you propose (people throwing up their
own housing) will not work in a society like ours. We have
way too many people now and we are far removed from any and
all primitive conditions of either nature or of our society
itself that would permit
Ia. I actually don't think public housing is such a bad idea
if it were done properly. Please note the qualifier ...
"done properly".

Latin America and all third world countries are full of
shacks and shanty towns. This is how the poor people (the
vast majority) live in those countries. We do not want to
see that in this country. We are Western and rich and there
are better and more sane solutions to the problem of housing
than shanty towns.

Your example of the Digger Indians is a good one, but please
note that there are no homeless in primitive type societies.
Everyone in those societies (unless they are outcasts) has
housing and hence a home. There is absolutely no reason on
earth why we can't accomplish this most essential and basic
of all tasks for any society - and that is to provide good
and adequate housing for everyone that does not cost an arm
and a leg.

> I predict that you won't be as disturbed by this as
> myself, but the country is getting less and less free. I
> have always felt that a FREE citizen, ala Thoreau, should
> be able to live a counter-culture life. I am NOT talking
> about being a burden, like a beggar or thief, I'm talking
> about rejecting the value system itself, and building a
> self-sustaining life apart from it. Like hippies in
> communes? Well, sure, but there is probably an infinite
> number of other ways to live. But our laws are seemingly
> designed to prevent that, to in effect, make it illegal to
> do anything but produce and consume which is what fuels
> our profligate way of life.

GeoB, again I couldn't agree with you more! Even though I am
presently a conservative (mostly because of the foreign
threat to this country) I have been at war with the society
that I am living in all my life. I have also speculated
about alternative life styles all of my life. That is one of
the very great advantages of having studied cultural
anthropology. The average American is not even aware that
there are other ways of doing things that accomplish the
same purpose of insuring a good and satisfying life for all
its members. If others have the courage to experiment with
alternative life styles, then I am all for it and I aways
await with interest whether they have succeeded or not.

I do not think our laws prevent any of this experimentation.
It is just that our present way of doing things is such an
overwhelming success for most that very few have the desire
or courage to experiment.

An interesting example of an alternative to our present
society is what the Israelis attempted to do with their
kibbutz system. I don't think it was much of a success
by and large. Some liked it, but most didn't. But there
is nothing wrong with trying out different ways of
doing things.

> I am not defending a homeless guys right(?) to **** and
> sleep wherever he wants, etc, but freedom of choice. Our
> entire system seems designed to make sure it is the ONLY
> system. And it is a non-sustainable system. For example,
> our taxation system makes it necessary for one to take
> part in society to earn money to pay for things one may
> never use and not value. Like.. well, I don't know, like
> maybe bus service, or welfare, or a baseball stadium (I
> hate baseball but I have to pay for our stinkin'
> stadium), or public school system. Yeah, I can argue
> their merits too.. but the point is, it is becoming
> illegal to be poor or to have a value system to far
> removed from that of the masses.
>
> Idaho county, ID where I once lived, at one time had no
> building code. OK, there were some shacks there. I don't
> care. I was interested in buying a small piece of land and
> building a wooden tepee to live in. So who would I be
> hurting? I don't know. "Oh, but you see, houses need to
> adhere to code so they will be sanitary and safe". Well, I
> don't care for the government protecting me by taking my
> rights. "Well, if you don't value these things, the
> building code will guarantee to the next resident in the
> house that it is safe". I DON'T CARE about any next
> resident, they ain't gonna be no 'next resident'. I wanna
> build my OWN crooked little house out of crooked little
> scraps of wood [1], with my crooked little brace & bit,
> with a home-made woodstove in it. And I'll burn the dang
> thing down when I'm done with it!

No, I can see where in the kind of society we are living in
today that there does have to be all kinds of codes and
regulations. You are far to the right of me on this issue.
You aren't libertarian by any chance are you?

> > Anyone who could not see to their own housing should be
> > institutionalized in public housing, hospitals or jails
>
> Read the paragraphs above, one more time.

No, it will not matter how many times I read you. You are a
Romanticist about housing and about how free a society
should be. There are individual rights but there are also
plenty of collective rights as well. In the end, I come down
on the side of the collective. Those of who study sociology
never end up enamored of individual rights. I believe it may
have been one of your Digger Indians who best expressed this
as a dimly recall from my days as a college student: What is
one man compared to the tribe? Nothing!

> > Parts of downtown Seattle are starting to look like
> > Calcutta with all the homeless people
>
> Starting? I have some photos I took there.. about 30 years
> ago.. of a buncha homeless folk wandering the streets.

GeoB, I have been living in small town here on the high
prairie of southern Minnesota for the past 30 years. So it
was a real shock for me to see Seattle, a really beautiful
city, blighted by all these homeless people just wandering
the streets and making a nuisance of themselves. A
rational, sane society would not permit this. You are not
free and you do not have any "rights" at all if you are
homeless. Believe me, I do feel for them. It is nothing but
a slow way of dying.

We humans require housing. We are not wild animals. All
sound societies provide housing for their members, no matter
how poor or how sick some of them may be.

> [1] And I'd kinda like to build a Navajo type of lodge, a
> hogan, too.. I'll bet it would be snug in the winter.
> Bring a few sticks for the fire, and maybe a fish,
> some nuts or berries or tubers for the stew, and a
> good yarn or too, and you can come visit a while. Uh,
> this isn't a hypothetical lifestyle to me as I have
> spent many winter evenings sitting talking with
> friends around a small wood fire in a raggedy hut. I
> grew up with/around Indians, Paiute (means fly-
> eaters), and Tulababul.
>
> [2] A hippy hut I'd like to build someplace: build a
> circular frame of flexible branches shaped like a
> wickiup, tied together at the top center. Then dip
> rags in a slurry of portland cement, and drape them
> over the frame to make a skin, maybe a couple of
> layers. Am told it yields a very functional house
> very fast, winter-proof and cheap.

Thanks for the very good post GeoB. That is why I am on this
newsgroup.

I spent 10 years of the best years of my life hiking and
camping on the public lands of the West. No one loves what
you are referring to above in your footnotes more than I do.
If I had my life to live over again I think I would live it
differently. But maybe not. I do not think I have your
courage and hardihood.

Best Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<KfZ4c.2786$rQ.545@lakeread04>...

> "GeoB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > We allow the rich their behavior because the system is
> > run by thieves and crooks.

> We do not allow the rich anything. They take it. They
> become lawyers, we chose between 2 choices usually, they
> get elected and if they retain their morales, they
> accomplish nothing, else they lose them and accomplish a
> lot, usually to their collective benefit. I say lawyers as
> most politicians have a law background.
>
> Way back in ancient history, the collective legislators
> were a conglomeration of shop keepers, farmers, and other
> types. They did what they had to do in Washington
> (formerly Philadelphia) and went home to earn their keep.
> Then, the people decided the federal gov't should do
> more... and more and more.... and we gave up our rights
> and responsibilities to the feds and wound up where we are
> today.... a lot of the population said 'let the feds do
> it' and the feds got all the power...
>
> That happens when you don't want to do things for
> yourself...
>
> Arne

Yes, everyone hates lawyers. But they are the lubricant
that makes our kind of society possible. I have often
thought that the best possible society to live in is one
ruled by lawyers. Only they know how to checkmate one
another, thereby insuring the maximum amount of freedom for
the rest of us.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

PS. Arne, please, always bottom post so that we know what
particular passage you are responding to at the outset
of reading your posts.
 
We are in a society that is ruled by lawyers. I do not know
what % of the general population is lawyers, but I don't
think it is 59%......

------------------------------------------------------------
-

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.overlawyered.com/cgi-local/mt/mt-
tb.cgi/601

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Number of
Senators who are lawyers' from Overlawyered. If You Wonder
Why Excerpt: "It currently stands at 59 of the 100,
according to today's editorial in Investor's Business Daily
on legal reform ('Any... Weblog: Rodent Regatta Tracked:
December 20, 2003 04:54 AM

------------------------------------------------------------
-

Arne

=====================
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<KfZ4c.2786$rQ.545@lakeread04>...
>
> > "GeoB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > We allow the rich their behavior because the system is
> > > run by thieves and crooks.
>
> > We do not allow the rich anything. They take it. They
> > become lawyers, we chose between 2 choices usually, they
> > get elected and if they retain
their
> > morales, they accomplish nothing, else they lose them
> > and accomplish a
lot,
> > usually to their collective benefit. I say lawyers as
> > most politicians
have
> > a law background.
> >
> > Way back in ancient history, the collective legislators
> > were a conglomeration of shop keepers, farmers, and
> > other types. They did what
they
> > had to do in Washington (formerly Philadelphia) and went
> > home to earn
their
> > keep. Then, the people decided the federal gov't should
> > do more... and
more
> > and more.... and we gave up our rights and
> > responsibilities to the feds
and
> > wound up where we are today.... a lot of the population
> > said 'let the
feds
> > do it' and the feds got all the power...
> >
> > That happens when you don't want to do things for
> > yourself...
> >
> > Arne
>
> Yes, everyone hates lawyers. But they are the lubricant
> that makes our kind of society possible. I have often
> thought that the best possible society to live in is one
> ruled by lawyers. Only they know how to checkmate one
> another, thereby insuring the maximum amount of freedom
> for the rest of us.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
>
> PS. Arne, please, always bottom post so that we know what
> particular passage you are responding to at the outset
> of reading your posts.
 
Edward Dolan wrote:

> ... There is absolutely no reason on earth why we can't
> accomplish this most essential and basic of all tasks
> for any society - and that is to provide good and
> adequate housing for everyone that does not cost an arm
> and a leg....

There is a very good reason why it can not be accomplished.
There is no profit in it for the wealthy holders of capital
that really run the US and many other countries. They do not
have to deal with the homeless problem since they live in
gated and guarded communities.

Homelessness is also a threat that can be used against
workers that get out of line. Removing the social safety net
(policy of the Republican Party and the DLC wing of the
Democratic Party) allows employers to obtain workers even
when they offer substandard wages and working conditions.

> ... The average American is not even aware that there are
> other ways of doing things that accomplish the same
> purpose of insuring a good and satisfying life for all its
> members. If others have the courage to experiment with
> alternative life styles, then I am all for it and I aways
> await with interest whether they have succeeded or not.

The "average American" has been brainwashed into believing
the national religion - EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN THE US THAN
ANYWHERE ELSE, AND NO IMPROVEMENT IS POSSIBLE. This is
supported by most politicians, media outlets, and public
school curricula. Campaigns of falsehood will be used to
discredit those who wish to change the system to benefit the
working classes. E.g., raising the minimum wage will result
in massive unemployment, reducing the tax burden on the rich
will benefit everyone, single-payer healthcare will result
in rationing of essential services [1].

> No, it will not matter how many times I read you. You are
> a Romanticist about housing and about how free a society
> should be. There are individual rights but there are also
> plenty of collective rights as well. In the end, I come
> down on the side of the collective....

However, the political party you support does not support
the rights of individuals or the collective, but puts the
rights of capital above all else.

> ... We humans require housing. We are not wild animals.
> All sound societies provide housing for their members, no
> matter how poor or how sick some of them may be.

By this definition, the US is not a sound society.

[1] Canada is offered as an example of this (which is
false), and in addition the fact that per capita health
spending is half the rate in Canada compared to the US
is not mentioned.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> > ... There is absolutely no reason on earth why we can't
> > accomplish this most essential and basic of all tasks
> > for any society - and that is to provide good and
> > adequate housing for everyone that does not cost an arm
> > and a leg....
>
> There is a very good reason why it can not be
> accomplished. There is no profit in it for the wealthy
> holders of capital that really run the US and many other
> countries. They do not have to deal with the homeless
> problem since they live in gated and guarded communities.

I do not see why there can not be profit in it for someone
to provide low cost housing for folks of modest means.
However, I do think it takes more brains to accomplish this.
If the free market were operating properly it would be done.
I do not recall folks having such serious problems getting
affordable housing when I was a kid some 50 years ago.

The rich are not immune from the problem of the homeless.
They encounter them on the streets where they work each and
every day. If they are not careful, their gated communities
will end up becoming fortresses and they will have to have
bodyguards accompanying them when they venture out. That is
the way it is in many third world countries.

> Homelessness is also a threat that can be used against
> workers that get out of line. Removing the social safety
> net (policy of the Republican Party and the DLC wing of
> the Democratic Party) allows employers to obtain workers
> even when they offer substandard wages and working
> conditions.

I don't confuse the problem of the lack of inexpensive
housing with low wages. They are two separate and distinct
problems. Employers aren't interested in threatening their
workers. That is way too conspiratorial for me.

> > ... The average American is not even aware that there
> > are other ways of doing things that accomplish the same
> > purpose of insuring a good and satisfying life for all
> > its members. If others have the courage to experiment
> > with alternative life styles, then I am all for it and
> > I aways await with interest whether they have succeeded
> > or not.
>
> The "average American" has been brainwashed into
> believing the national religion - EVERYTHING IS BETTER IN
> THE US THAN ANYWHERE ELSE, AND NO IMPROVEMENT IS
> POSSIBLE. This is supported by most politicians, media
> outlets, and public school curricula. Campaigns of
> falsehood will be used to discredit those who wish to
> change the system to benefit the working classes. E.g.,
> raising the minimum wage will result in massive
> unemployment, reducing the tax burden on the rich will
> benefit everyone, single-payer healthcare will result in
> rationing of essential services [1].

We have 50 states in this union known as the United States.
There is plenty of opportunity for the states to try
different approaches to solving problems. I do not like to
see corporate executives calling all the shots and I also do
not like to see strong labor unions calling all the shots
either. Politicians are power brokers and should always be
striving for a balance to benefit most of us most of the
time. That is why we have two political parties, so we can
get the balance right.

The rich already pay most of the taxes in this country, even
with the recent reduction in their taxes by the Republican
congress. Kerry can only threaten to raise taxes on the
rich. If he even mentions raising middle class taxes he will
go down to massive defeat like Mondale did. This should tell
you that most Americans think they are paying more than
enough taxes.

Not everything is better in the US than everywhere else and
there is plenty of room for improvement. I think most
Americans would go along with that. But it is nonetheless
true that the US is the most successful and wealthiest
nation the world has ever known and that the lot of the
common man is better here than anywhere else in the world.
That is why all the rest of the world is trying to get here.
We want to go very slow about changing something which has
been such a smashing success on the world stage of history.

> > No, it will not matter how many times I read you. You
> > are a Romanticist about housing and about how free a
> > society should be. There are individual rights but there
> > are also plenty of collective rights as well. In the
> > end, I come down on the side of the collective....
>
> However, the political party you support does not support
> the rights of individuals or the collective, but puts the
> rights of capital above all else.

You are over simplifying. It appears to me that it does not
really make much difference whether the Repubs or the Dems
are in power. Their policies with respect to capital (the
big corporations) do not differ much. They both know that
that is what makes this country work. The best any of us can
hope for is that a reasonable balance be struck. We don't
all want to be equal in wealth if it means we are all equal
in poverty. That was what the Soviet Union did. They made
everyone equally poor except for a small ruling clique
(which was an intellectual class).

However, I do believe we Americans are entirely too enamored
of individualism. It is part of our popular culture, but we
are nation of 300 million now and things are getting crowded
everywhere. It is time we gave up these Romantic notions of
each of us being unique individuals and attempt to get on a
more collective wavelength. Like Patton said when addressing
the troops ... this being an individual is a lot of horse
dung ... war is a team effort. And so is living in society.

> > We humans require housing. We are not wild animals. All
> > sound societies provide housing for their members, no
> > matter how poor or how sick some of them may be.
>
> By this definition, the US is not a sound society.

There is one hell of a lot wrong with the US by any rational
standard. It is just that the US is better than all those
other nations out there. That does not mean that we do
things here in the US better in every single area of life,
but overall we do things better.

> [1] Canada is offered as an example of this (which is
> false), and in addition the fact that per capita
> health spending is half the rate in Canada compared to
> the US is not mentioned.

How we pay for health care in this country is a disgrace. In
fact, it is just plain crazy. It is going to break down
completely one of these days and we shall then implement a
more rational system which I believe will strongly resemble
the Canadian system. The Canadian system from what I have
been able to observe is not perfect, but I have not heard of
any Canadians wanting to give it up. I think that just about
says it all.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
"Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<mE25c.3672$rQ.2995@lakeread04>...

> We are in a society that is ruled by lawyers. I do not
> know what % of the general population is lawyers, but I
> don't think it is 59%......

I grant you your point, but what I am saying is that is not
such a bad thing. Who would you rather be ruled by?
Corporate executives. Labor union leaders. Priests.
Intellectuals. Wealthy landowners. I think not.

The advent of the small town lawyer in America who works in
all areas of the law is one of our finest creations. It may
very well be that this lawyer class has more to do with our
freedoms than any other class of citizens. They value the
law above all else and see to its enforcement. I give you
old Abe Lincoln as a fine example of what I am talking
about. If it weren't for lawyers, we may very well have lost
our democracy long ago along with most of our freedoms.

But lawyers do not so much rule us as represent us. But the
beauty of it is that lawyers know how to check one another
without coming to blows or committing murder. This creates
balance and it is very difficult for any one person or
clique to ever dominate anything. It mostly creates a lot of
grid lock, but that is not such a bad thing either.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Edward Dolan wrote:
> Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]
> berlin.de>...
>
>
>>Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>
>>>... There is absolutely no reason on earth why we can't
>>>accomplish this most essential and basic of all tasks for
>>>any society - and that is to provide good and adequate
>>>housing for everyone that does not cost an arm and a
>>>leg....
>>
>>There is a very good reason why it can not be
>>accomplished. There is no profit in it for the wealthy
>>holders of capital that really run the US and many other
>>countries. They do not have to deal with the homeless
>>problem since they live in gated and guarded communities.
>
>
> I do not see why there can not be profit in it for someone
> to provide low cost housing for folks of modest means.
> However, I do think it takes more brains to accomplish
> this. If the free market were operating properly it would
> be done. I do not recall folks having such serious
> problems getting affordable housing when I was a kid some
> 50 years ago.
>
> The rich are not immune from the problem of the homeless.
> They encounter them on the streets where they work each
> and every day. If they are not careful, their gated
> communities will end up becoming fortresses and they will
> have to have bodyguards accompanying them when they
> venture out. That is the way it is in many third world
> countries.

And the economic elite’s in those third world countries
appear to be content with the status quo, as they generally
oppose any reform efforts that would lead to a more equal
distribution of wealth. (Ironically, since they are less
affluent than the wealthy in the more socially equal
countries of western/northern Europe and Japan).

>>Homelessness is also a threat that can be used against
>>workers that get out of line. Removing the social safety
>>net (policy of the Republican Party and the DLC wing of
>>the Democratic Party) allows employers to obtain workers
>>even when they offer substandard wages and working
>>conditions.
>
>
> I don't confuse the problem of the lack of inexpensive
> housing with low wages. They are two separate and distinct
> problems. Employers aren't interested in threatening their
> workers. That is way too conspiratorial for me....

It happens all the time - ask anyone who has worked in a low
wage factory. If management hears a rumor of union
organizing, they call a meeting where it is made clear that
they will shut the plant down if the workers unionize. There
are plenty of desperate workers to exploit in third world
countries.

Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)
 
I would like to be ruled by either a benevolent dictator
with a grip on life, or a conglomeration of people who
actually work for a living and have a bit of a struggle to
make ends meet. The first would probably not pass out the
pork and get rid of some of the stupid things that occur
(ie, suing a company that sells food because a person can't
walk away from their plate) and the second would have a grip
on how money should be spent.

An example is our own town. It is one of the top 5 towns in
my state for per capita income. And when they build schools,
they draw on their experiences of how they live.
Consequently, they think our schools should reflect their
life style. And our taxes have risen accordingly. And people
of normal means are leaving town to avoid our high taxes....

Then we have our folks in washington who have their own
retirement plan. They have their own health care system.
What did they do after passing OSHA and Equal
Opportunity Emloyment Act? They put provisions in that
excluded themselves from having to follow the laws they
just passed.... In short, they continually put
themselves above us.

The main reason the gov't first existed was to maintain an
army/navy for the defense of our country. There was no
income tax...... and it has grown from there to where we are
now. We think they should take care of everybody and
everything.

Arne

=====================
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:<mE25c.3672$rQ.2995@lakeread04>...
>
> > We are in a society that is ruled by lawyers. I do not
> > know what % of
the
> > general population is lawyers, but I don't think it is
> > 59%......
>
> I grant you your point, but what I am saying is that is
> not such a bad thing. Who would you rather be ruled by?
> Corporate executives. Labor union leaders. Priests.
> Intellectuals. Wealthy landowners. I think not.
>
> The advent of the small town lawyer in America who works
> in all areas of the law is one of our finest creations. It
> may very well be that this lawyer class has more to do
> with our freedoms than any other class of citizens. They
> value the law above all else and see to its enforcement. I
> give you old Abe Lincoln as a fine example of what I am
> talking about. If it weren't for lawyers, we may very well
> have lost our democracy long ago along with most of our
> freedoms.
>
> But lawyers do not so much rule us as represent us. But
> the beauty of it is that lawyers know how to check one
> another without coming to blows or committing murder. This
> creates balance and it is very difficult for any one
> person or clique to ever dominate anything. It mostly
> creates a lot of grid lock, but that is not such a bad
> thing either.
>
> Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
Tom Sherman <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
> > The rich are not immune from the problem of the
> > homeless. They encounter them on the streets where they
> > work each and every day. If they are not careful, their
> > gated communities will end up becoming fortresses and
> > they will have to have bodyguards accompanying them when
> > they venture out. That is the way it is in many third
> > world countries.
>
> And the economic elite?s in those third world countries
> appear to be content with the status quo, as they
> generally oppose any reform efforts that would lead to a
> more equal distribution of wealth. (Ironically, since they
> are less affluent than the wealthy in the more socially
> equal countries of western/northern Europe and Japan).

The amount of wealth and the feeling of security that
economic elites have in third world countries is all
relative to the society they are living in. They do not
compare themselves with our economic elites, but with
their neighbors and the conditions prevailing in their
own societies. My point was that we do not want to end up
like those third world countries. And I am pretty sure
our economic elites do not want to end up living in
fortresses and traveling about with bodyguards like they
do in Latin America.

> >>Homelessness is also a threat that can be used against
> >>workers that get out of line. Removing the social safety
> >>net (policy of the Republican Party and the DLC wing of
> >>the Democratic Party) allows employers to obtain workers
> >>even when they offer substandard wages and working
> >>conditions.
> >
> >
> > I don't confuse the problem of the lack of inexpensive
> > housing with low wages. They are two separate and
> > distinct problems. Employers aren't interested in
> > threatening their workers. That is way too
> > conspiratorial for me....
>
> It happens all the time - ask anyone who has worked in a
> low wage factory. If management hears a rumor of union
> organizing, they call a meeting where it is made clear
> that they will shut the plant down if the workers
> unionize. There are plenty of desperate workers to exploit
> in third world countries.

I do believe in strong unions and that workers should have
one hell of lot to say about their wages and the conditions
of their labor. I spent 4 years in the Navy which was
nothing less than servitude (that is why it is called
military SERVICE). But the Navy did take care of my housing
and just about everything else that a human being needs,
except the freedom to come and go as you please. I want
people who work for wages and salaries to be 100% better off
than I was in the Navy.

However, I still do not see why enterprising builders could
not provide affordable housing for low wage workers and
still make a handsome profit. All it takes is brains and
enterprise.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
> However, the solution you propose (people throwing up
> their own housing) will not work in a society like ours.
> We have way too many people now and we are far removed
> from any and all primitive conditions of either nature or
> of our society itself that would permit it.

Yes, of course. But please note that I *didn't* propose a
solution. One of the hats I wear at work is that of an
analyst (administrator and programmer also). We analysts
demand the right to discuss a problem from all angles and
perspectives without being understood to be 'proposing' a
solution. It is a complex world, one must be willing to dig.

GeoB "A conclusion is the point where you stop thinking"
 
"Arne" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<tHh5c.5635$rQ.4515@lakeread04>...

> I would like to be ruled by either a benevolent dictator
> with a grip on life, or a conglomeration of people who
> actually work for a living and have a bit of a struggle to
> make ends meet.
[...]

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is
an oxymoron.

The second group you mention would be ideal and harkens back
to the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy, the sturdy yeoman of
the countryside. Alas, those days are long gone.

What we presently have is not as bad as you imagine it to
be. It could be infinitely worse. Because of elections we
always have the power to throw the bums out of office, but
that usually happens only when things have gotten so bad
that there is clearly no alternative. It took the Great
Depression to get rid of the Republicans who had hitherto
dominated the politics of the country. They were replaced by
Roosevelt and the Dems who immediately proposed to do
something about the depression. That is often what it takes
to get the electorate to act. It is quite wrong to blame
everything on the politicians when more often than not it is
the electorate (us) that is to blame.

Ed Dolan - Minnesota
 
not true.. a dictator is simply a one person government.
that does not exclude fairness.

What we have now could be much better than it is. It is
human nature that has ruined it.... even fair application of
the laws we have now to hold those jackasses accountable for
their actions would be nice. Most times, when they get
caught, they get a slap on the wrist.... where we would wind
up in jail.

Anyway, this discussion is getting boring, so I'm done.

Arne

=====================
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is an
> oxymoron.
>
> The second group you mention would be ideal and harkens
> back to the Jeffersonian ideal of democracy, the sturdy
> yeoman of the countryside. Alas, those days are long gone.
>
> What we presently have is not as bad as you imagine it to
> be. It could be infinitely worse.
 

Similar threads

S
Replies
6
Views
503
Recumbent bicycles
Sunset Lowracer [TM] Fanatic
S
L
Replies
0
Views
419
L