Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>> Capitalism let old people starve. That's why we now have Social Security.

Old people need to provide for themselves. FDR created the Ponzi scheme
called Social Security to buy votes. Now they're delaying its inevitable
total collapse again and again with temporary band-aid fixes, each party
hoping that the other will wind up holding the "Old Maid" and get blamed
when it finally happens. The blame, of course, belongs to FDR alone.

>> Capitalism's failures gave us public schools, public universities, a
>> government-run military, interstate highways, etc.

Capitalism didn't give us any of those. Socialism did. And in all those
cases except the military, you can easily find good examples of market
alternatives if you look for them. For instance, no tax-funded university
will ever be the equal of Stanford or Harvard.

> Yet it's creating environmetal havoc left and right and up and down,

Get real. The environment has never been in any danger. The left makes
up these so-called "crises" as an excuse to regulate our lifestyles.

> wars over resources that threaten our very survival,

Our survival has not been threatened by any war since WW2, unless you
count the war against the terrorists, which is about Israel and has
nothing to do with oil, and everybody knows it.

> the highest penal population in the world,

Thanks to the government "war on drugs".

> parks that are occupied by the homeless,

and phony homeless, thanks to so-called civil rightists that won't let
the cops clear the bums out.

> unsafe roads

the safest roads in history

> where the big rule,

where the majority rightfully rules,

> junk food that's making our kids addicts

Eating is voluntary. If your kids are eating wrong, it's YOUR job to
teach them better. Not taxpayers' job.

> to something worst than cigarettes,

ROFL! How many tens of thousands die every year from eating junk food?

> endless commercial TV and radio shows that offend our intelligence,

TANSTAAFL. If people want to pay for better shows, we'll get them.
Besides, the most mindless TV of all is the liberal-dominated "news",
even on Fox.

> lack of universal healthcare,

Thank goodness we don't have that form of idiotic tax-slavery here.
If you want it, move to Great^H^H^H^H^HWashed-Up Britain, and hope you
don't need treatment any time soon. (Britain is in the middle of an
epidemic of infections right now -- which they have named "MRSA" --
because their hospital staff are too rushed to follow basic sanitary
procedures properly! I'll be the lefty media weren't in any hurry to
tell you about that!)

See, for instance:
http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/o...o2502.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=42037

> unsafe streets, and a few other social ills.

Like the huge jumps in crime rates in the last year or two, caused by
new gun control laws in Britain and Australia?

> Other than that, capitalism is OK... ;(

Other than that, you may have a clue about cause and effect... ;(
 
> > They say American are becoming too fat. What's
> > next, have the government place a high tax food so
> > some folks don't eat too much. If I felt about SUV's
> > the way you do I would not buy an SUV, if I were you.
> >
> >
> Absolutely. And houses are too big, we eat out too much, and travel far
> too much. We need to give up vacations and work harder.

I was going to advise the opposite: you work too much and have too
little vacation to pay for the SUV. :(


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> They say American are becoming too fat. What's
> next, have the government place a high tax food so
> some folks don't eat too much. If I felt about SUV's
> the way you do I would not buy an SUV, if I were you.
>

You must be reading my mind. That's exactly what I propose...

"Junk food should have a warning label (just like cigarettes),
particularly the one destined to children, and also be taxed to
subsidize healthy alternatives."

I said to myself if cigarettes are taxed and the military is paid for
by taxpayer why not extend it to everything.
 
"don't **** in the well!"

<I never took much notice of Perot, because third parties dont go
anywhere, in dumo-cricies, but I thought he was rather libertarian.
And the libertarian answer to the global demise of the
environment and social demand is to put all but the super-rich in
quarantine so only the rich carry on greatly reducing the rate of
which we arrive at the crisis point. >

Well, Perot had something you very much need to practice "democracy"
in America: Big Bucks. There was no puppeteer and no invisible hand
behind him--I'd imagine--for he financed himself. That gave him a lot
of freedom to say things, and some of these things sounded
right-libertarian. But right-libertarians come in two kinds according
to this article. My idea is that we can coexist with the "True
Libertarians."

Notice the reference to the Well...


LIBERTARIANISM AND FREEDOM

In THE REVOLUTIONARY RIGHT I mentioned briefly that we, as
Libertarians, hold that the right to be let alone, free from
governmental meddling, is the most important right of all, as it
implies all others. It is, in essence, the right to do what one
wishes, EXCEPT INJURE SOMEONE ELSE.
I noted that no freedom is absolute, and now add the central
presumption: ASSUMING that one chooses to remain a part of any
society. I submit as self-evident that every freedom is like a
coin with two faces: a RIGHT as the "heads", and a concomitant
RESPONSIBILITY as the "tails". A right, with no responsibility
to exercise it properly, is inconceivable to a TRUE Libertarian.
A second point to introduce here: all Libertarians appear to
be "free enterprise" oriented--but many seem to advocate unbri-
dled freedom as a panacea for our economic and social problems.
Well, here I begin to respectfully but emphatically disagree.
The key word is "unbridled", which implies ABSOLUTE freedom
to make a profit, with no moral obligations whatsoever. Thus I
submit that these "Libertarians" create a bad image--i.e., that
our movement is dedicated merely to making money, and has no
philosophical basis other than the profit motive. I submit that
we must temper our economic Libertarianism with a degree of
social responsibility.
Let me give you an example. Mr. Jay Hanson has filed two
scholarly articles on alt.politics.economics on the subjects, THE
FATAL FREEDOM and KNOW THYSELF. To quickly summarize the theme
to which Mr. Hanson devotes in-depth treatment, he cites Hobbes
and Locke, among others, for their writings on the concept of
"the Commons"--that is, the gifts of nature which are common
property IN EQUAL SHARES to each and every member of any social
group.
These Commons are to be protected from abuse by any member
of a society to preclude their exhaustion by damaging exploita-
tion. Destruction of the Commons, in fact, is an injury to the
common rights of all other persons. In a nutshell, we're talking
about conservation--a/k/a environmental protection--to preserve
as best we can the quality of life for ourselves and our poster-
ity.
The oldest book in the world refers to the preservation of
the Commons as a basic part of the "social contract". The book
is from China, and is called I CHING (pronounced roughly "yee
jing"), which is the basis of Taoism (pronounced roughly
"dowism"), Confucianism, and plays some role in Zen Buddhism.
The title means, "The Book of Changes", and the book consists of
64 symbolic six-line figures called hexagrams, each one bearing a
symbolic title, and given a spiritual meaning which was origi-
nally in poetic form.
Number 48 is called "The Well," and refers to the tradition-
al well--central to every town in ancient China--which was the
source of water essential to sustain the quality of life for
EVERYONE. The theme of the relevant poem is to PRESERVE THE
WELL--the town might change, but the well must remain the same.
Forgive me for interpolating a very crude and even vulgar inter-
pretation--but I can think of no "polite" version that would make
the point as well. One meaning of this hexagram might be quite
coarsely rendered: "if you're going to live in the town, don't
**** in the well."
Back from Chinese philosophy to modern-day Libertarianism!
To many so-called Libertarians, the idea of environmental pro-
tection is high on their "hit" list. Get the government off our
backs, say they--let people do what they want. I submit that
these so-called Libertarians are nothing more than short-sighted
opportunists, who see a chance to make a buck by exhausting
irreplaceable natural resources as one of their primary rights.
I say they are wrong.
Here's one reason why. A couple of years ago a narrow dirt
road near my home was widened and paved. In order to widen it to
let a few cars drive a little faster and easier, crews cut down a
fairly large tree because its spreading roots lay where the all-
important concrete had to be poured.
It took nature about 100 years to grow that tree, and it
took those men with power saws about 100 minutes to destroy it
forever.
Do I feel sentimental about a tree? Not in the sense of the
familiar poem. But consider for a moment the similar destruction
of the Amazon rain forest--or the arguments to cut down most of
the Sequoias in California to make money on their lumber.
There are, essentially, two rights in conflict in the
dispute: the right of "free enterprise" touted as all-important
by so-called Libertarians, and the right of future generations to
be born into a sane and healthy environment, as we were early in
this century.
True Libertarians must be willing to accept the "tails" of
responsibility of providing for our posterity over the "heads" of
a quick profit on the coin of commercialism. I say a coin with
two "heads" for freedom is counterfeit.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/kirkbros/pg10.html
 
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 wrote:
> >> Capitalism let old people starve. That's why we now have Social Security.
>
> Old people need to provide for themselves. FDR created the Ponzi scheme
> called Social Security to buy votes. Now they're delaying its inevitable
> total collapse again and again with temporary band-aid fixes, each party
> hoping that the other will wind up holding the "Old Maid" and get blamed
> when it finally happens. The blame, of course, belongs to FDR alone.

Many presidents have made decisions based on electoral campaigns.
Actually they all do. Sometimes for the better like the example
above--helping the poor can't hurt, even by the wrong means--sometims
for the worst--becoming a war president to rally the people behind
him.

>
> >> Capitalism's failures gave us public schools, public universities, a
> >> government-run military, interstate highways, etc.
>
> Capitalism didn't give us any of those. Socialism did. And in all those
> cases except the military, you can easily find good examples of market
> alternatives if you look for them. For instance, no tax-funded university
> will ever be the equal of Stanford or Harvard.

Conservatism and Communism are so much alike and have some important
feature in common: They both hate COMPETITION.

Even "True Libertarians" reject the role of authoritarian government.
What we got is a monopolistic lion, not true law of the jungle, and
your unconcern for the environment shows your predatory ways.

***

Subject: Re: What about the Day after Tomorrow?

Thank you for your comments. I agree with you. Rather one single event
bringing about change, it would take a comprehensive approach. But WE
NEED A POLITICAL WILL first. Regretably, the political will goes
toward consumption, as proven by the recent $.08 tax break on
gasoline.

So the starving of the dinosaur may come as the result of some major
world event--something we are totally and absolutely unprepared for.
How much better it would be to wean the oil-addicted dinosaur over a
period of time... ;)

[email protected] (JohnAndrew) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bravo for this post. My great grandfather was a staunch Republican
> too, and he'd agree. For Americans with 4% of the world's
> population to squander 25% of the world's
> limited oil supply, as if there's no tomorrow, is immoral
> from a social justice perspective, and from a political and
> an environmental perspective, it's insane.
>
> However, higher gas prices ALONE will not be enough. If we
> just let gas and oil prices rise, one thing we'll do is encourage
> the global energy industry to produce a lot more fossil fuels.
> It's not unthinkable that this could then lead to a temporary DROP
> in energy prices again, and the sales of more SUVs and Hummers.
>
> This sounds paradoxical, but it is pretty much what happened
> in the early 1980s when world oil prices were soaring and the US
> had just decontrolled the oil industry - thanks to a 1978 decision by
> the Carter administration, oddly enough, and not the Reaganites.
>
> Especially with Iraq and Iran engaged in a bitter war, world oil
> prices in the early 1980s soared to something like $27 a barrel or
> more, then suddenly plunged in 1985 to roughly $13/barrel. It
> wasn't global scarcities or global surpluses that did this, but
> the vagaries of Middle East politics and disagreements within OPEC.
>
> But in any case, "energy conservation" powered by high prices suddenly
> became un-economic, big cars started to come back into fashion, and
> the US embarked on the trend towards gas-guzzling SUVs that we see today.
>
> Given the high degree of oligopoly and global cooperation/conflict
> that characterizes the global oil market, relying on price trends
> alone to promote conservation is a mistake. Higher prices, taken
> by themselves, help the oil companies to boost their revenues
> and their power, which may not be that good for the environment.
>
> They also screw the poor and those living on fixed incomes,
> and they don't guarantee that private enterprise and government
> will make the large investments needed -- in mass transit and
> in residential housing patterns, for example -- to make a "green"
> and sustainable energy future possible.
>
> So if we do embrace higher energy prices, let's make damned sure
> that there are safeguards put in place to keep lower-income people
> from being ruined in the process -- if only because we don't want
> them being mobilized against "environmental elitists" by the
> corporate polluters and amoral economic conservatives of the future.
>
> Meanwhile, let's use the power of government to make other
> essential changes as well -- more public investment in mass
> transit systems, higher fuel efficiency standards for new
> cars mandated by law, higher federally mandated standards for
> the energy efficiciency of large appliances, and maybe some
> government-funded pilot projects on making it easier for people
> to live near where they shop and work.
>
> Federal subsidies for promising new alternative energy technologies
> and tax breaks for "green" alternative energy development would be good,
> too.
>
> When these measures are combined with higher fuel prices, they
> might enable American society to make use of some "market mechanisms"
> to promote better energy policies -- but without becoming slaves
> of a so-called "free market" in energy that are largely controlled
> by the largest corporations on earth, and not by the average individual.
 
Tim McNamara wrote:

>
> Your claim is one of the usual arguments put forth to justify the
> stripping of ownership from Native Americans. It's racist ********.
> Planting a flag on a continent and declaring ownership is no better a
> claim- indeed, a much weaker claim to ownership- than living on it for
> hundreds of generations. But that's basically what Europeans did.

At least in the corner of the US I am from, the "native
American" sold land to the stupid white people. I sure they
had a good laugh. They sold some worthless swamp land
covered with trees they could clear and that they didn't
care much about to some hicks moving south from Virginia.
They then just moved to some other land and pulled the same
stunt all over again.

Ed
 
John David Galt <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>
> > the highest penal population in the world,
>
> Thanks to the government "war on drugs".

You must be a Libertarian (and I agree with you on *this* issue) but
I'm afraid you are also a predator.

"society and state are not to be confused"

Those who want the Law of the Jungle (in their own terms) are
predators, not Libertarians. Those who accept MORAL OBLIGATIONS could
be considered the GOOD LION.

THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

Thomas Paine, previously cited numerous times, wrote that
society is always a blessing, and not to be confused with govern-
ment, which is essentially a police force--coercion, for short.
At that time I added that SOME government--as little as pos-
sible--is NECESSARY to protect the rights of the majority in any
society, who act in good faith, from INJURY by the selfish few to
whom "good faith" is an oxymoron.
Many so-called Libertarians will disagree vehemently with my
viewpoint, because I talk about moral obligations. Such persons
have no sense of moral obligations that I can discover. To them,
conscience--as Mencken wrote--is just the voice inside that tells
them someone might be watching.
In short, they want a license to steal--and they attempt to
justify their selfishness by saying they're Libertarians.

CONCLUSIONS

I submit that Libertarians must examine their own thinking
very carefully and decide if they are willing to accept the ideal
of social responsibility or not.
If no, I suggest they get out of the Libertarian Party, or
that true Libertarians unite to issue a Manifesto on a philosophy
that addresses (a) the necessity of accepting a responsibility
with every right; (b) the necessity of protecting the rights of
unborn Americans to as healthy an environment as our generation
inherited; and (c) the necessity of protecting those innocent and
unfortunate persons who are unable to protect themselves from the
rapacious greed and amorality of sociopaths who seek to live by
the law of the jungle.
If the Libertarian Party cannot concoct a platform of basic
ethical principles that go beyond mere freedom, the party should
be prepared to close up shop.

http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/kirkbros/pg10.html
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>"society and state are not to be confused"

Statists disparage the distinction all the time.

>THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

There's only one clause in the "social contract" worth examining, and
that's the one which says "society" may unilaterally change the terms
at any time without notice, even ex post facto. A "contract"
enforcable against only one side (the individual) is no contract at
all.

>that addresses (a) the necessity of accepting a responsibility
>with every right;

I know all about those. You're told you have a bunch of rights, but
with each right comes a "responsibility" in fine print which vitiates
the right. E.g. you have the right to free speech, but the
responsibility to shut the **** up.

>(b) the necessity of protecting the rights of
>unborn Americans to as healthy an environment as our generation
>inherited;

This is a _conservative_ article, as this red-flag tells you. Are you
sure it's on your approved list?
 
> >And many must be wondering if THEY are the only ones to sacrifice.
>
> 'Cuz they joined the military. Most of 'em are happy to go and defend the
> country. They're keeping the bad guys busy over there, which distract's 'em
> lot from being able to cause death and destruction here.

Defend their country in a place like Iraq that was NOT related to any
real threat to America? Now the terrorists use it as rallying cry and
the world has turned against us. Are you sure they are distracted? Why
then government buildings are on high alert?

>
> >However, there has to be a point to the sacrifice. During WWII, they
> >> did massive rationing to have material for the solidiers. Now, the country
is
> >> rich enough to supply the soldiers and the citizenry.
> >
> >Is it? Cuts in education, health, social programs seem to contradict
> >that. And even antiterrorist funds are scanty because big money is
> >being spent OVER THERE. Of course, it's hard to tell when you see the
> >SUV partying like it's 1999....
>
> You think that rationing, etc. is somehow going to reverse cuts in education?

Is it difficult to imagine that the money wasted in Iraq could have
used for education? Well, our schools are falling apart, literally
(see below).

>
> As for the war taking $$$ away from anything, how do we _not_ have a war now?
> We were attacked. If we don't respond, the pinheads involved will still keep
> attacking. Just sit back and take the losses, even if the pinheads scrape up
> a nuclear weapon someplace and take out 1.5 million New Yorkers? You want
> that? That could be the price of doing nothing.

Money for REAL SECURITY is hard to come by. Sorry, it was used in
Iraq... :(

> >Nobody is talking about placing you in sardine cans,
>
> Like hell. VW Beetle / Honda Civic, etc == sardine can. That's what the
> greens have been advocating for decades. Yes, they _are_ talking about
putting
> _everybody_ in sardine cans.

Unless you feel a shark, sardine cans are fine. I'm 6'1", 220 lbs and
I'm the happiest man in my Geo Metro. Actually it's one of the
roomiest
cars I ever had.

>
> >just that some
> >are behaving like they they got the whole world to provide for them,
> >and that's a recipe for trouble.
>
> The gas price is going up. They're going to get tired of the 300 mile trip to
> gramma's place costing $100 or so, round trip. This will be self-curing,
> eventually.

I hope so. I hope the war brings something good. ;)

> >I know SOMETHING gotta change. Change is a law of nature. Sometimes by
> >evolution, sometimes by catastrophe like it happened in the Jurassic.
> :mad:
>
> There's more than evolution, a naturally occuring phenomenon, and a
> catastrophe. There's also Invention and Engineering. I'd rather go with
these
> last two, as they're less disruptive, usually.
>
> Dave Head

No, Invention and Engineering are currently hired by NASA in order to
get to Mars. Nothing of the sort in our dilapidated, violent planet.
:(

Md., Others Seek Aid to Rebuild Schools
By BRETT ZONGKER, Associated Press Writer

BALTIMORE - Kojo McCallum's fourth-grade classroom has been infested
by mice and the window panes have deteriorated to a cloudy, opaque
tint.

Outside the Charles Carroll Barrister Elementary School in Baltimore,
graffiti colors the walls and drug needles have popped up on the
grounds.

"Not only is it old and decrepit, it's the filthiest environment I've
ever worked in in my life," McCallum said. "And kids have to learn
there."

It would cost $3.85 billion to bring every Maryland school up to
minimum health and safety standards, according to a February report
from a task force led by State Treasurer Nancy K. Kopp.

Faced with a problem that could break the budget, Maryland is joining
a growing number of states by looking for private partners to help
improve school facilities. A law that took effect July 1 allows
Maryland's school systems to fund school construction and renovation
projects using alternatives to traditional financing, which usually
comes from the sale of bonds by public agencies to banks and
investors.

Baltimore leaders are starting small. They recently began a campaign
and a special fund, seeking the united support of city agencies,
community groups and corporations to improve facilities.

"We're away from the wagging finger, and now we need to start swinging
the hammer," said Mayor Martin O'Malley. "It's not all up to the
school board; it's up to all of us."

Aides say O'Malley was inspired by what he saw during an April trip to
Chicago, where Mayor Richard Daley has led a massive school
improvement campaign.

"What Daley said was the most important thing is for the students and
parents to know that the community cares," said David Costello,
director of O'Malley's Office of Community Investment.

Basic improvements, including landscaping, scouring buildings'
exteriors, and painting and cleaning up restrooms, are the quickest
ways to do that, Costello said.

"There is a physical effect when light comes into a classroom," said
Baltimore schools CEO Bonnie Copeland. Cleaner, better maintained
buildings can lead to academic improvements, and it's unfair to
compare the city's test scores with those of more affluent school
systems when many city schools have inadequate air conditioning and
bad bathrooms, she said.

Chicago officials started by breaking their goals down into phases,
said Sean Murphy, chief operating officer for that city's public
school district. Work first targeted building exteriors before major
interior work.

The idea is "let's make the Chicago schools easier to help," said
Cynthia Greenley, director of external partnerships for the school
system. Private partners and donors have given as much as $1 million
to individual schools, she said.

While the donations have helped, Murphy said the Chicago campaign has
been largely financed by taxpayers through bond sales.

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040805/ap_on_re_us/school_construction_3
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >"society and state are not to be confused"
>
> Statists disparage the distinction all the time.

There's a big difference: The difference between lion and little
animals. The lion--the King of the Jungle--claims he has been chosen
by the little animals, but many say that the lion is simply eating the
little animals. So whether this is democracy or Law of the Jungle, may
depend on who you trust...

>
> >THE SOCIAL CONTRACT
>
> There's only one clause in the "social contract" worth examining, and
> that's the one which says "society" may unilaterally change the terms
> at any time without notice, even ex post facto. A "contract"
> enforcable against only one side (the individual) is no contract at
> all.

Well, I know the sheep want to impose certain pressure on the black
sheep to behave like them. But, sure, the black sheep may as well be
the only one right.

>
> >that addresses (a) the necessity of accepting a responsibility
> >with every right;
>
> I know all about those. You're told you have a bunch of rights, but
> with each right comes a "responsibility" in fine print which vitiates
> the right. E.g. you have the right to free speech, but the
> responsibility to shut the **** up.

Are talking about America *now*? Actually dissent is an expression of
democracy, and the black sheep may be a better user of democracy than
the sheep in voting for the lion.

>
> >(b) the necessity of protecting the rights of
> >unborn Americans to as healthy an environment as our generation
> >inherited;
>
> This is a _conservative_ article, as this red-flag tells you. Are you
> sure it's on your approved list?

This is not a conservative article, this a True Libertarian article.
The difference is easily appreciated in this compass...

OK, time to take a poll to see who's who...

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

You may also see this simplified poll...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=87995

where things stand
"New and intriguing insight...clever and easy to follow. Perhaps our
own leaders should take the test and reveal their scores to the voting
public."
- Marilyn Baker, Calgary Herald (Canada)

<I didnt get too far into the questionaire on finding bearings, I
found some too ambiguous or rather loaded without meaning to be.
I agree left and right arent much help, in fact they are a
hinderance.>

Howdy Bader
Well, you get the point: It's a complex issue, and a 4 dimensional
compass is more appropriate than left and right. It's very different
being a left-libertarian than a left-authoritarian, for example. The
left-authoritarian proposes society gives the fish to the
disadvantaged creating dependency, but the left-libertarian proposes
teaching them how to fish, having the little people build their own
water well. Conversely the right-libertarian may say it's not his
problem. The right-authoritarian, on the other hand, would probably
try to destroy the water well...

<The Lions economic system will not allow the value of technology and
infastructural progression from one generation to the next to register
in societies balance sheet so to speak because it could then be
monitarised and shared nationally
(national dividend)
giving people financial independance and social justice- their own
waterhole and would dry up the lions central waterhole.
The lion wants everyone to continue to thirst and be dependant on his
waterhole. Technology will continue to reduce employment
and the debt system will continue to reduce the value of employment on
the other hand- which increases thirst. Thats why household debt is so
high.>

The Big Lion is up there in the right-authoritarian corner. He would
want to bottle the water and sell it throughout the world. Any
statement that the water should be free would be deemed "subversive."
He hates COMPETITION...

<If it all turns nasty in the increasing pressures building up as
covered in part by DonQs quote from Economic and Political Justice,>

The risks are ignored; the lion cares only about elections to become
the King of the Jungle. That's "democracy."

***

The story of the Water Well...

HOW THE LION BENEFITS FROM THE LITTLE ANIMALS' POVERTY

One day all the little animals went up to the King of the Jungle and
complained about their poverty, and in particular about the fact that
every time, during the dry season, they had to travel long distances
to drink the precious fluid, and demanded a WATER WELL be built for
them... They cited how the resources that they contributed to the
kingdom were wasted in WARS and EXTRAVAGANT PROJECTS to the tastes of
the King... He, however, replied with all kinds of excuses: the lack
of resources, that it wasn't a matter of him not wanting it, but that
it was a matter of "priorities" --which was one of his favorite
words...

Meanwhile, an Owl --who had very good eyes-- had been observing life
in the jungle, and thought this way: "Every time there's a dry season
the little animals must come to the little dirty waterhole where the
Lion waits for them... Had they been well fed and strong, he would
have had to run after them and even risk resistance. And, more
importantly, the little animals are forced to fight the Lion's wars as
the only way out of poverty..."

And that's how the Owl landed an important --and well paid-- post in
the brand new Astronomy Department created by the King of the Jungle
--to the effect of exploring life in other planets...

Moral: The little animals need their own well (self-employment,
cooperatives, etc), but no one will build it for them, but
themselves...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
 
Paul Bramscher <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > I think that's part of the problem with American drivers: for them
> > driving is a chore. Perhaps driving better cars (stick shift, sport
> > suspensions, etc) on demanding roads (autobahn conditions) would do
> > the trick. Otherwise they should be riding the bus.
>
> Stick shift might mean setting down your coffee or cell phone. God
> forbid that.

I know, that's taboo...

But perhaps we can have American drivers wear those hydration packs in
fashion with cyclists ;)

>
> Yet keep in mind that most American interstate highways are (for the
> most part) straight and our population density is a magnitude smaller
> than Europe's. Makes no sense to return to manual transmission in the
> modern age or to put curves in our highways. I'm not convinced that a
> stick shift is in your best interest for mountain or winter driving either.
>
> What we need to define 4 distinct zones of space:
> (1) Urban
> (2) Agricultural
> (3) Recreational
> (4) Wilderness
>
> In America, everything is basically sprawl along highways. We need to
> build planned communities around alternative transportation
> possibilities (walking, biking), actively tear down sprawl construction
> -- not merely cease doing it, and encourage telecommuting.

True, that's the real solution...

Sprawl Costs

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"The Federal Highway Administration itself now agrees that building
more roads does not relieve congestion."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

SOCIAL

Because we spend so much time isolated in our cars and suburban homes,
we have little time or opportunity for social contact, and the normal
random meetings that take place while walking along pedestrian
friendly streets and around public spaces. In addition, the
combination of the formlessness of the suburbs along with low quality
architecture has an alienating effect on us all.

At the same time, our cities have been made unlivable by the
automobile arriving in mass quantities.

ECONOMIC

We now spend more time than ever in stressful traffic, and nearly 30%
our income on car payments, gas, maintenance, and insurance. A great
majority of our tax dollars go towards the endless building of roads
and highways, with little left for valuable things like education,
civic buildings, quality architecture and public spaces, or the
building of new modern train systems. Our futile attempt to make the
car happy is draining our national economy as well as our own personal
savings.

In addition, highway and airport gridlock is strangling our national
and regional economies as more and more time is wasted stuck in
traffic. This greatly reduces our nation's productivity while raising
the cost of doing business for everyone.

ENVIRONMENTAL

The constant exhaust fumes our car fleet pumps into the atmosphere
daily takes it's toll on the global environment in many ways, and
continues to degrade all the natural systems we are dependant on for
life support. The continuous building of ever more roads and highways
along with sprawling low-density development is consuming miles of the
irreplaceable natural environment. Our beautiful wilderness areas,
which are some of the greatest national treasures of America, are
quickly being transformed into asphalt deserts.

HEALTH

Our quality of life keeps getting worse as we are constantly stuck in
traffic. Our ugly, car-dominated environment is highly stressful,
extremely unhealthy (from the constant toxic exhaust fumes we breathe
daily), and very deadly (from the endless car accidents). This
stressful environment takes its toll on us in countless ways:
increased stress and rage, more alcoholism and drug abuse, rising
divorce rates, rising rates of cancer and other environmental
diseases, and a general dissatisfaction with our lives.

In addition, major health organizations point to the fact that a high
percentage of Americans have serious health problems due to being
overweight. This is caused primarily by the lazy lifestyle sprawl
dictates with little or no walking or exercise as part of our daily
routines.

SPRAWL IS NOT INEVITABLE. It is not an unavoidable symptom of modern
growth. Sprawl is the direct result of specific government
transportation choices and policies, combined with archaic zoning
laws.

http://www.newurbanism.org/pages/416433/index.htm
 
In article <[email protected]>,
DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"society and state are not to be confused"
>>
>> Statists disparage the distinction all the time.
>
>There's a big difference: The difference between lion and little
>animals. The lion--the King of the Jungle--claims he has been chosen
>by the little animals, but many say that the lion is simply eating the
>little animals. So whether this is democracy or Law of the Jungle, may
>depend on who you trust...

You're lost in the weeds.
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Paul Bramscher <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >What we need to define 4 distinct zones of space:
> >(1) Urban
> >(2) Agricultural
> >(3) Recreational
> >(4) Wilderness
> >
> >In America, everything is basically sprawl along highways.
>
> Try getting off the highway for a change, and you'll see that ain't
> so.

Where you want me to try, Alaska? ;)
>
> >We need to build planned communities around alternative transportation
> >possibilities (walking, biking),
>
> You can build them, but if you don't provide for cars, people won't
> come; they'd be trapped there.

Not so long as people only have THE ONE AND ONLY OPTION AMERICA
PROVIDES: DRIVING. Somehow it reminds me of communism.
>
> > actively tear down sprawl construction
> >-- not merely cease doing it,
>
> Those of us living in such construction are likely to object,
> strenuously.

You don't have to. I'm talking about having OPTIONS.
>
> Stop trying to plan the whole country; it's too big a task for a
> central committee.

I know you know the party policies by heart. But we are talking here
about SMALL GOVERNMENT (the smaller the better) that still can take
care of business, not in the hand of business... ;)
 
> > And yes, this is a crackpot theory. Belongs in a bad "X-Files" plot.
>
> It's as solidly based as many of the commonly believed things about
> GWB.
>
> What do you think about the latest film from Mr. Moore?

And what do you think of the best actor in Mr. Moore film?

"It's as if the government were following a script from the theater of
the absurd."

"And is it even beginning to think seriously about lessening our
debilitating dependence on Middle Eastern oil?"

Failure of Leadership
By BOB HERBERT

Anthony Dixon and Adam Froehlich were best friends who grew up in the
suburbs of southern New Jersey, not far from Philadelphia. They went
to junior high school together. They wrestled on the same team at
Overbrook High School in the town of Pine Hill. They enlisted in the
Army together in 2002. And both died in Iraq, in roadside bombings
just four months apart.

Specialist Dixon was killed on Sunday in Samarra. Specialist Froehlich
was killed in March near Baquba. They were 20 years old.

No one has a clue how this madness will end. As G.I.'s continue to
fight and die in Iraq, the national leaders who put them needlessly in
harm's way are now flashing orange alert signals to convey that Al
Qaeda - the enemy that should have been in our sights all along - is
poised to strike us again.

It's as if the government were following a script from the theater of
the absurd. Instead of rallying our allies to a coordinated and
relentless campaign against Al Qaeda after Sept. 11, we insulted the
allies, gave them the back of our hand and arrogantly sent the bulk of
our forces into the sand trap of Iraq.

Now we're in a fix.

The war in Iraq has intensified the hatred of America around the world
and powerfully energized Al Qaeda-type insurgencies. At the same time,
it has weakened our defenses by diverting the very resources we need -
personnel, matériel and boatloads of cash - to meet the real terror
threats.

President Bush's re-election mantra is that he's the leader who can
keep America safe. But that message was stepped on by the urgent, if
not frantic, disclosures this week by top administration officials
that another Al Qaeda attack on the United States might be imminent.

A debate emerged almost immediately about whether the intelligence on
which those disclosures were based was old or new, or a combination of
both. Nevertheless, because of the growing sense of alarm, there was
an expansion of the already ubiquitous armed, concrete-fortified sites
in New York City and Washington.

The pressure may be getting to Mr. Bush. He came up with a gem of a
Freudian slip yesterday. At a signing ceremony for a $417 billion
military spending bill, the president said: "Our enemies are
innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking
about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The nation seems paralyzed, unsure of what to do about Iraq or
terrorism. The failure of leadership that led to the bonehead decision
to invade Iraq remains painfully evident today. Nobody seems to know
where we go from here.

What Americans need more than anything else right now is some honest
information about the critical situations we're facing.

What's the military mission in Iraq? Can it be clearly defined? Is it
achievable? At what cost and over what time frame? How many troops
will be needed? How many casualties are we willing to accept? And how
much suffering are we willing to endure here at home in terms of the
domestic needs that are unmet?

Neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon was honest with the American
people about Vietnam, and the result was a monumental tragedy. George
W. Bush has not leveled with the nation about Iraq, and we are again
trapped in a long, tragic nightmare.

As for the so-called war on terror, there is no evidence yet that the
administration has a viable plan for counteracting Al Qaeda and its
America-hating allies, offshoots and imitators. Whether this week's
clumsy sequence of press conferences, leaks and alerts was politically
motivated or not, the threat to the U.S. is both real and grave. And
it can't be thwarted with military power alone.

Does the administration have any real sense of what motivates the
nation's enemies? Does it understand the ways in which American
policies are empowering its enemies? Does it grasp the crucial
importance of international alliances and coordinated intelligence
activity in fighting terror? And is it even beginning to think
seriously about lessening our debilitating dependence on Middle
Eastern oil?

The United States is the greatest military and economic power in the
history of the planet. But it lacks a unifying sense of national
purpose at the moment, and seems uncertain, even timid, as the
national security challenges continue to mount. That is what a failure
of leadership can do to a great power.
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> In article <[email protected]>,
> >> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"society and state are not to be confused"
> >>
> >> Statists disparage the distinction all the time.
> >
> >There's a big difference: The difference between lion and little
> >animals. The lion--the King of the Jungle--claims he has been chosen
> >by the little animals, but many say that the lion is simply eating the
> >little animals. So whether this is democracy or Law of the Jungle, may
> >depend on who you trust...
>
> You're lost in the weeds.

Weed, what weed? ;)

Think about it: The world is a jungle, and predators, and camouflage,
and competition, and cooperation are all part of it. We got to get rid
of the authoritarian lion and the cunning foxes, and allow both
COMPETITION AND COOPERATION TO COEXIST.
 
Hey you, so called "libertarians," let's see what you stand for...

(get the gun for the road ready, and get rid of the one for Iraq) ;)

Question:

"Since roads today are *not* privately owned, should we call for laws
against drunk driving?"

My short answer:

"My personal belief is that these laws do more harm than good.Instead,
I'd
prefer to see reckless or careless drivers pulled off the road, whether
they are under the influence of alcohol, drugs, sleep loss, medication,
or
emotions that distract them from safe driving.The libertarian
philosophy
permits defensive measures when force is threatened (e.g., you can
defend
yourself against me if I point a gun at you but haven't fired yet).
Reckless driving could qualify as the threat of force."

* * *

Sharon Harris, president of the Advocates for Self-Government, answers
those questions and more in this compelling, acclaimed speech.

Sharon explores a too-often neglected aspect of liberty -- its
compassionate and benevolent side. She firmly dispels the myth of
"benevolent" government, and gently makes the case that only freedom
can
give people what they want: a tolerant, humane, and abundant society.
Along
the way, she also...

* Contrasts the invisible hand of freedom with the "visible fist" of
government.

* Dispels the "dog-eat-dog" myth of ruthless free-market competition.

* Exposes the government's war against desperately ill Americans.

* Defends the right to keep and bear arms as a way to create a more
peaceful and secure society.

* Explains why freedom fosters a more cooperative, compassionate,
generous
world.

* Shows why asset forfeiture is "robbery with a badge."

* Makes the case against a military draft and senseless foreign wars.
 
We should take these European countries to international court for
denying the right of the elderly and children to die... ;)

(The walking/bicycle ridership for Holland is 46%, for Denmark is 41%,
and for the good ol' US of A is 7%)

Promoting safe walking and cycling

European experts suggest demo projects as a key issue to promoting
safe walking and cycling. Another highly ranked topic is implementing
a uniform comprehensive technique for monitoring safe traffic
behaviour among children, elderly and disabled people around Europe.

(snip)

The area ranked at the very top was "How walking and cycling can form
an integral and attractive part of daily travel by demo projects".
This deals with ways of getting more people to walk and ride bicycles
on an everyday basis by providing better infrastructure such as a
safe, coherent, direct, comfortable and attractive cycle network.
Accompanying countermeasures could be information and promotion (by
the city and/or corporations) to encourage individual citizens or
employees to walk or bike, and the creation of an organisation to act
as catalyst in the development of pedestrian and bicycle friendly
planning. It is suggested to show best practise by demo projects. The
health benefits will be the same regardless of why a person walks or
bikes, but the reduction in automobile trips will only be accomplished
if these modes substitute automobile driving.

(snip)

"How walking and cycling can form an integral and attractive part of
daily travel by improved intermodality" also ranked seventh. Safe
routes to and from public transportation and secure bicycle parking
facilities are obvious necessities if one desires to see more people
ride bicycles to and from bus and train terminals. Even more important
may be ensuring that future planning keeps densities high and
distances short so that these systems can be supported.

http://www.vtt.fi/rte/transport/tutkimus/liikenneturvallisuus/Promoting_Lale.htm
 
> > I don't doubt your stats, but I don't think they mean much either. It's
> the
> > old apples vs oranges comparison.
>
> I've been trying to tell him that for ages. To no avail.
>
> You know what I think? I think DQ is a mole. Hired by the FordGMToyota
> conglomerate, specifically put in here to kill off cycling.
>
> Listen to his rants.
> "I have 3 bikes, but I can't ride them because it's too dangerous"

True.

> "If you ride on the street, you must have a death wish"

Or at least have Life Insurance...

> "The lion will eat you"

Sure, it's a jungle out there.

> "We should do it like they do in China" (cycling = communism)

Never ever I mentioned China. It must have popped up in your communist
mind. I've been promoting OPTIONS here for the longest of time. Of
course we could learn from Europe or Curitiba--for public
transportation--or you may simply come up with your OWN SOLUTIONS. Key
West has a mix of transportation modes (car, bicycle, alternative
vehicles). Do you think that's possible for the rest of the nation, or
should we continue to live under the Law of the Jungle? To tell you
the truth, I'm a bit uneasy about those UNDERTRAINED, RECKLESS DRIVERS
BEHIND AN SUV. Could you at least take care of that?

>
> Promoting cycling? No. I don't think I've ever heard someone more *anti*
> cycling. Not even He Who Shall Remain Nameless.
> If he really wanted to promote cycling, he'd just do it by example. Like a
> lot of us do. Just STFU, and ride down to the local store and back.
> Instead of continually telling people over and over how dangerous it is.
>
> Pete
> wonder how much he's getting paid?

No, I'm looking for a sponsor. How much a "cyclist" that doesn't want
bike lanes gets paid?
 
And MONOPOLY is not restricted to transportation, but to the Press and
a few other things out there...

http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php3?threadid=91428

No less than 70% of the people--including conservatives--think it's
not free. They find a problem with it: It's about BIG BUCKS, just like
roads...

Is the American Media Free?
This is a letter from "Free Press," an organization watching over the
Media, who's either turning a blind eye toward the jungle or simply
supporting the lion.

These are the problems with the Media: "trivial sound-byte journalism,
hypercommercialism, and narrow political debate."

No wonder many sheep don't see the lion...

Dear E-Activist,

For all of us concerned about the sorry state of the media in America,
the Democratic Convention was a mixed bag. On the bright side, the
official Democratic platform states: "Because our democracy thrives on
public access to diverse sources of information from multiple sources,
we support measures to ensure diversity, competition, and localism in
media ownership." This provision reflects the tremendous work of labor
leaders, activists and policymakers who increasingly understand the
problems of the media: trivial sound-byte journalism,
hypercommercialism, and narrow political debate.

We can also celebrate our crucial victory in June when the federal
appeals court blocked FCC Chairman Michael Powell's effort to let Big
Media get bigger. But the court ruling was a rear-guard defense
against the latest assault on our democratic discourse by a
well-organized media lobby with deep pockets. They aren't quitting.
And the convention, sponsored in part by these same media
conglomerates, provided another reminder of how much work we have
ahead of us.

Senator John Kerry laid out a relatively long list of policy goals,
but once again media were missing from his remarks. One thing is
clear: media reform will not be realized until politicians add it to
their list of issues like the environment, education, the economy and
health care. Real reform --breaking up monopolies; real increases in
access to independent, diverse media; more funding for non-commercial
and Indy media; stemming the commercial carpet-bombing of our culture;
expanding the number of community radio stations, to name a few-- will
not occur until the American people demand that their political
representatives address the media.

The television networks' decision to air a mere three hours of the
convention was another shining example that the U.S. media system is
at an all-time low. These networks --presently enjoying colossal
profits-- own stations that receive free monopoly broadcast licenses
to use airwaves owned by the U.S. public. The law states that in
exchange for the right to rake in big bucks using scarce public
property they must serve the public interest. But Big Media have again
shown their contempt of the public: one of the rare moments when
Americans are open to discussing politics was squandered on our public
airwaves. (see the excellent NY Times article about this below)

This fall the networks and big TV stations will continue their assault
on democracy as they collect billions of dollars to flood the airwaves
with dubious TV candidate ads while providing minimal and mostly
superficial campaign coverage otherwise. In 2000, TV stations ran an
average of 74 seconds of election coverage per night in the months
leading up to the election. And over half of the 74 seconds was
coverage about campaign strategy, not actual social and political
issues. In fact, much of the TV "news" coverage this year will be
assessing the ability of the costly TV candidate ads to "spin" the
public!

Running a massive slate of TV ads is now the ante for admission to
"legitimate" candidacy for federal office in the United States. Most
of the money for these TV ads will come from the wealthiest 2% of
Americans, making all candidates far more beholden to wealth than is
healthy for a democratic system. This massive windfall explains why
the big media companies are the most significant lobby that opposes
campaign finance reform, and why campaign finance is a media reform
issue. This is an issue Free Press is working on in collaboration with
allies like Common Cause and the Alliance for Better Campaigns. We
will keep you posted as the campaign develops.

Despite the opposition of the leadership in the House, Senate, and
White House, media reform has held its own in Washington. The drive to
gut media ownership limits has been turned back. We have won a
significant victory in the Senate Commerce Committee to expand low
power FM radio (although we may have to wait until 2005 to see it
become law). And Congress has begun to hold hearings to investigate
cable monopolies, broadcasters' hoarding of the digital spectrum, and
the future of public service communications.

We have a long way to go, but we've come a long way in the past year.
Several million more Americans are aware of media and media reform
this year than last. Scores of U.S. Senators and members of Congress
have joined the media reform movement, and new media reform
organizations and activists are mobilizing across the nation. There is
so much great work being done, and I'm so glad that you're part of it.

Thank you,
Robert McChesney
Founder and President
Free Press

This is their website...

http://www.freepress.net/

And this is mine...

http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote
 
Mike Z. Helm <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 11 Aug 2004 22:07:14 -0700, [email protected]
> (DonQuijote1954)
>
> >> > But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many
> >> > drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B,
> >> > and driving is a chore, to be palliated be eating, drinking, talking
> >> > on the phone, why do you defend so stubbornly driving as your only
> >> > option?
> >> >
> >> > HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH? :(
> >>
> >> Hey ****wit, we don't hate driving, we hate the fact that you eco-numbskulls
> >> have made driving a pain by blocking needed expansion of the road system.
> >> If you want everyone around you to take the train, go live in Manhattan.
> >
> >Have you thought of bringing order into the chaotic American roads?
> >Though I know how much you love to spend taxpayers money on roads, it
> >makes more sense to ENFORCE TRAFFIC LAWS. Who knows, you may be able
> >to move far more people without spending a single penny. Oh I forgot,
> >the money saved, we can use on alternative transportation.
> >
> >If you don't hate driving, then you must hate having alternatives. Or
> >else you just want to go with the herd... ;)
> >
>
> The thing is, we hate waiting, and we hate spending our taxes on
> transporting other people around.

You hate spending taxes on people, or you simply hate people? By the
way, are you the kind that pushed for "liberating" the Iraqi people? I
don't know, you see some flag-waving SUV drivers like that out
there... ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back