Biker Killed by Mountain Lion

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
Of course, a discussion between friends is something else entirely and
should be off-line. But I do not fall into that category with anyone
on this newsgroup....

There's a surprise.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
Yes, the hatred of Bush is a phenomenon which defies rational
explanation....

The hatred of Bill Clinton is a phenomenon that defies rational explanation.

... If any one tells me that the major media are not liberal I
think I will go stark raving mad from the frustration of it all....

The mainstream US media is not liberal, but mostly follows the lead of
their corporate masters. Now live up to your word, Mr. Dolan.

Hell, if it weren't for Fox News, I would already be as mad as a hatter....

The presumption behind the above statement is arguable.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Ed:

The only people I know in person who are not "local" to the WHIRL group are
Cletus and Arne. I like both of them, although I'm probably not politically
compatible with either. So being able to converse with them offline is
really quite a good thing. I assure you, nothing of any great importance is
discussed.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
om...
"Arne" wrote in message
news:Ymj6c.12543$rQ.3861@lakeread04...

Scott, after writing out a long reply to you personally, no email
address.... even at the bottom....

Arne

You ought to be posting to the newsgroup so I and others can get in on
it. No need to be exclusive here. We are all known to one another by
now and we have no secrets from one another. This is a mature
newsgroup and you do not need to be concerned about being flamed
unless you initiate it.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

Ed:

I think the URL "wrapped" so you may have to cut and paste whatever is on
line 2 to get it to work.

--
--Scott
"Edward Dolan" wrote in message
om...
"Freewheeling" wrote in message
...

Arne:

"What we have now could be much better than it is. It is human nature
that
has ruined it"

So how could it be better than it is?

Anyway, since you're bored here a citation to an article written by
David
Brooks on "bourgeoisophobia."


http://www.weeklystandard.com/conten...001/102gwtnf.a
sp

It's a generalization, but a very powerful one.

Your link above does not get me to the citation. Which is too bad as I
am always delighted to read about the bourgeoisie, whether for good or
ill. But the Weekly Standard is a fine publication and I shall
continue to search for the article by David Brooks.

Regards,

Ed Dolan - Minnesota

George:

The whole point of Bucky Fuller's housing innovations was to provide people
with inexpensive structurally robust homes, built to aircraft tolerances,
that also reduced the work and expense of maintenance, and fulfilled needs
that current housing doesn't even attempt to meet. Most of his homes don't
meet code, because the code is designed for post and lintel construction,
and geodesic construction (including tensegrity) is simply a different (and
illegal) paradigm. The illegality isn't due to any genuine concerns, but to
the lobbying of the building industry.

It is true that we're prevented from downgrading at will, but we're also
prevented from upgrading, and it's *that* that'll finally cost us.

There are analogs in the economy, public finance, etc. Options about which
we're so unaware that they aren't even mentioned by anyone. For instance,
the reason we have poor people in the first place is that capital is several
orders of magnitude more productive than labor, so if you don't control any
capital you aren't even a player in this economy. We could change that
without indulging in *any* socialistic, welfare-state, needs-based
subsidization. We don't because,... well... just guess.

--
--Scott
"GeoB" wrote in message
om...
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.

And now, apparently, Andrew Sullivan is willing to vote against Bush and has
started scraping the sides of the barrel to see if there's anything not
repugnant about Kerry. Meanwhile, here's a great read on the historical
meaning of "appeasement." Turns out it doesn't really matter what the
Spaniards have in mind, or why they voted the way they did:

http://www.chicagoreport.net/archives/001139.php

--
--Scott
"Zippy the Pinhead" wrote in message
...
On 18 Mar 2004 06:07:42 -0800, (Edward Dolan) wrote:

Do you know of
anyone who really likes Kerry?

Wrong choice.

Can you come up with enough people who don't hate Bush, by the time
the "smear machine" gets done?

To hear the Dems tell it, Bush is evil incarnate, and responsible for
every bad thing that ever happened since the Great Depression.

And there are a plethora of sheep who will drink Kerry's purple
Kool-Aid.

Sure, Kerry will increase Federal spending on social programs, but
he'll pay for it by raising taxes only on the elite; the very
wealthiest 98% of Americans.

It's for the children. And the ozone.

Did you know Kerry went to Vietnam?

Freewheeling wrote:

...
There are analogs in the economy, public finance, etc. Options about which
we're so unaware that they aren't even mentioned by anyone. For instance,
the reason we have poor people in the first place is that capital is several
orders of magnitude more productive than labor, so if you don't control any
capital you aren't even a player in this economy. We could change that
without indulging in *any* socialistic, welfare-state, needs-based
subsidization. We don't because,... well... just guess.

Greed.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Edward Dolan wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote in message ...


Edward Dolan wrote:


... I will have to take stock of myself and I will report back to the newsgroup my

findings and reconsiderations.

We can barely wait.


A brief reading of the article leads me to believe that it should be
required reading for everyone who fancies himself a Western
intellectual. I am including you in this category somewhat
reluctantly. Therefore you should read it and maybe learn something
about your own inclinations and prejudices. It won't hurt you to read
the article and it might do you some good. Why go through life hating
the commercial classes (the bourgeoisie) when you don't have to.

I read the article by David Brooks and was not impressed. The same ideas
justifying aggression and greed have been trotted out in seemingly
endless right wing editorials.

I do see why the article would appeal to someone who watches Faux News
(sic) or to someone who (possibly on a subconscious level) likes to see
problems solved with violence.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Edward Dolan wrote:

...
Without knowing too much about the particulars of the issue you raise
(this never prevents me from commenting about anything though), I
would guess that the main reason newer modes of construction don't
work out is because they turn out to be more costly. Period! It
doesn't matter to the building industry how houses are built. If they
can be built more cheaply and there is a demand for it, it will be
done. Most new ways of doing things turn out to be not only more
costly but wacky besides unfortunately....

Most people are shortsighted when purchasing housing (and many other
things) since they only consider the initial cost instead of the
life-cycle cost. The typical timber frame, plywood sheeting, drywall and
siding construction is the lowest initial cost alternative in the US,
and therefore the most common. However, a building made from reinforced
masonry or concrete will have significantly lower heating, cooling, fire
insurance and maintenance costs. In addition, at the age where the
timber frame building requires demolition or costly complete remodeling,
the masonry or concrete building will still be functional and
economically valuable.

Of course there does seem to be a mentality in the US that favors
disposable items that are thrown out and replaced with something new -
possibly a holdover from the 19th Century when westward expansion did
make many living arrangement temporary.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)

Edward Dolan wrote:

"Freewheeling" wrote in message ...


And now, apparently, Andrew Sullivan is willing to vote against Bush and has
started scraping the sides of the barrel to see if there's anything not
repugnant about Kerry. Meanwhile, here's a great read on the historical
meaning of "appeasement." Turns out it doesn't really matter what the
Spaniards have in mind, or why they voted the way they did:

http://www.chicagoreport.net/archives/001139.php


An excellent article Scott, very finely nuanced and well written.
Another important thing to remember about the Islamic terrorists is
that they are clearly not rational. They do not think like how we
think. I regard them all as crazed. The degenerate product of a
degenerate civilization and a scurrilous religion of medieval origins
which hasn't changed one iota in a thousand years....

The other interpretation is to not put yourself on the morally wrong
side of a political situation. Being in the morally wrong will force the
response to terrorism to be a continuation of the morally wrong action
or the appearance of appeasing the terrorists.

--
Tom Sherman - Quad Cities (Illinois Side)