On Nov 19, 10:38*am, Peter Clinch wrote:
KingOfTheApes wrote:
Well, this based on subjective appreciation. I think good drivers
begin with education but ultimately depend on enforcement. So going
back to my favorite metaphor, WE NEED THE BANANA (the treat) AND THE
WHIP TO TAME THE BEAST.
So where does that need bike paths?
I guess only Jesus can, huh?
No.
OK, let's say not everybody is "tough." Let's admit some people are
"chicken" or that they are just bothered by traffic noise... so they
need bike paths. Let's assume also that families with kids are not
tough enough for the roads, so they can have an space along the
ckicken.
*Too bad for those who don't believe
there's a Jesus. Well luckily, there's a revolution around. 
a) there isn't, and b) even if there were it would be missing the point
creating bike paths.
Of course, it woudn't be a revolution to create bike paths but to
protect the weaker species of the capitalist jungle, ie, those who are
unwilling or unable to drive SUVs.
OK, HAVING OPTIONS sounds good to me, and whether there's bike
facilities or not, you should be able to ride wherever you wish.
Absolutely, but if you insist on creating bike paths with your
"revolution" you'll find yourself being pushed onto them whether you
like it or not. *Why do I think that? *That's what experience shows me
happens. *It required extensive lobbying by the CTC (UK's biggest
cyclists' organisation) to get rid of a word-change to the Highway Code
that would say cyclists should use "facilities" wherever possible. *That
it succeeeded in quashing the revision shows that a bit of democracy in
action can work, but that it was necessary to do it shows that creating
bike paths tends to limit options rather than expand them.
I'm afraid if you want real results you hhave to deal with relaity,
rather than dreams.
Dreams sometimes become reality and sometimes become nightmares. Which
is good always go back to good-ol'-fashinoned Orwell.
Forgive me this revolutionary rhetoric...
Originally Posted by Lamplight
I was actually thinking more along the lines of executing the
aristocrats and walking around calling each other "citizen".
***
No, a bloody revolution would make as much sense as the war in Iraq,
which is to say we don't need it.
This is more along the lines of Gandhi and King, who were inspired by
Jesus, whether he existed or not.
So Christians are welcome, Muslims are welcome (because we don't agree
with the West nor with the terrorists), and, of course, the proles are
welcome since this a revolution largely inspired by Orwell's
animalism, thus we will call each other, "Hey brother monkey!"
WHY ANIMALS? Thank Orwell in large part...
'Orwell agreed with Marx's social arguments, but as we will later see,
disagreed on many of his other beliefs. In Animal Farm, we can see his
depictions as man as a social animal and his Socialist ideologies
through old Major's very Marxist speech in the barn: "Why... do we
continue in this miserable condition? Because nearly the whole of the
produce of our labour is stolen from us by human beings. There,
comrades, is the answer to all our problems: It is summed up in a
single word ‹ Man. "Man is the only creature that consumes without
producing... He sets [the animals] to work, he gives back to them the
bare minimum that will prevent them from starving, and the rest he
keeps for himself... "Only get rid of Man, and the produce of our
labour would be our own... That is my message to you, comrades:
Rebellion!'
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/2074/orwell.htm