New Skyscrapers To Be Linked By Stunning 65-Metre High Cycle Bridge

[Sir Ridesalot]

"A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in 2016.

The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.

The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for cruise ships to safely pass by below. "

Article herte:

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscrapers-linked-stunning-65-metre-164450982.html

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
between skyscrapers!

See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
money!!

You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
"strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

Our governments still bend to the masses cries for more lanes on the
road so they can be filled by more cars. Cars that usually only carry 1
person (about 1.1 is the average I think), and if the US is anything
like Australia, where 50% of car trips are up to 5km.

--
JS

[sms]

On 11/24/2015 2:18 PM, James wrote:

> Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
> segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
> volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.
>
> Our governments still bend to the masses cries for more lanes on the
> road so they can be filled by more cars. Cars that usually only carry 1
> person (about 1.1 is the average I think), and if the US is anything
> like Australia, where 50% of car trips are up to 5km.

Compaq linked its buildings in a forest outside of Houston with bridges.
They were really for pedestrians but I think they used bicycles inside
as well because it was a long distance around. The bridges linked
factory buildings, parking garages, and offices.

All of that ended when HP bought them. A lot of the buildings were sold
off to a college, and some were torn down.

During evening rush hour in Silicon Valley a bicycle is often a faster
commute than a car for commutes of up to ten miles. Even the HOV lanes
are now full of single-occupancy Teslas, Leafs, Volts, and Plug-In
Priuses. Mass transit is a dirty word, and the transportation agency is
hopelessly inept.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:
> On 25/11/15 02:24, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>> On 11/24/2015 12:17 AM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>>> "A new pair of skyscrapers linked by a pedestrian and cycle bridge
>>> will be built in Copenhagen Harbour with construction due to start in
>>> 2016.
>>>
>>> The unusual new design is the work of New York-based architect Steven
>>> Holl and will feature an angled bridge 65m above the water's surface.
>>>
>>> The bridge needs to be high up in order to allow enough room for
>>> cruise ships to safely pass by below. "
>>>
>>> Article herte:
>>>
>>> https://ca.news.yahoo.com/skyscrapers-linked-stunning-65-metre-164450982.html
>>>
>>>
>>
>> How innovative!! Finally, cyclists will have a safe place to ride
>> between skyscrapers!
>>
>> See, that's the trouble with North America. The Danes are willing to
>> invest in REAL segregation, separating bicyclists from motor vehicle by
>> over 150 feet of VERTICAL space. But North American traffic engineers
>> still expect cyclists to ride on the ground! And why? Just to save tax
>> money!!
>>
>> You can't expect everyone 8 through 80 to ride on the ground! Only the
>> "strong and fearless" will ever ride on the ground!
>>
>
>
> Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
> segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
> volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.

I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense. Trouble is, most
of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

The currently fashionable propaganda is that nothing less than a
"protected cycletrack" is acceptable. "Bikes May Use Full Lane" signs
and rules, with "sharrows" on the pavement? Terrible idea! A bike lane
stripe? Horribly inadequate! A "buffered" bike lane, with a
no-person's-land between motor vehicles and bicyclists? Maybe
acceptable to some, but really not good enough. Only a completely
separate bike trail, or a cycletrack with car-proof barriers is good enough.

With "safety inflation" so rampant, maybe vertical segregation will be
the next plea. After all, if the Dutch can do it, why can't Americans?
http://hovenring.com/

If you like, we can explore what segregation schemes actually do make
sense. There are some I favor.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

Why the fuck does everything have to get highjacked by you and your damn anti agendas? The OP was about a bridge linking to towers and two islands 2 kilometers from any other bridge. it was NOT about bloody cycle paths in the united Statews!

Geeze!

[James]

Progress.

> Trouble is, most
> of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.

Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
many compromises have to be made.

I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
lane. It's all about the car!

>
> If you like, we can explore what segregation schemes actually do make
> sense. There are some I favor.
>

There are very few examples of good infrastructure in Australia. Most
is tokenism, or window dressing. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

--
JS

[Doug Landau]

You watch your ass.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JN99jshaQbY

[Frank Krygowski]

Geeze indeed, Sir. What did you want me to say? "Oooh, let's build
those everywhere!"?

In fact, why did you post that at all?


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/24/2015 7:29 PM, James wrote:
> On 25/11/15 10:09, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm fine with that segregation where it makes sense.
>
> Progress.

My attitude's always been the same on that.

>> Trouble is, most
>> of the proposed segregation schemes in the U.S. really don't make sense.
>
> Agree, same in Australia. The designers don't seem to have any
> comprehension of what makes sense and what doesn't, or if they do, there
> are so many other requirements of the surrounding infrastructure, too
> many compromises have to be made.
>
> I commented on the design of a separated lane proposal for a street in
> Melbourne. I said the protected lane should continue to a busy
> intersection, and a separate green phase for bicycles needed to be
> added, so that cyclists were safe from left hooks and the charge of the
> light brigade of motorists. The suggestion was squashed with claims of
> reduced motor traffic throughput. In other areas there are cries from
> shop owners if you want to remove street parking to make way for a cycle
> lane. It's all about the car!
>
>>
>> If you like, we can explore what segregation schemes actually do make
>> sense. There are some I favor.
>>
>
> There are very few examples of good infrastructure in Australia. Most
> is tokenism, or window dressing. Like putting lipstick on a pig.

Part of the problem is a lack of appreciation for the real-world
complexities and hazards. It's really true that in my state we have
bike advocacy organizations demanding crazy facilities, with "protected"
cycletracks being high on the list. (Door zone bike lanes have also
been demanded.)

In one case I'm well aware of, when a traffic engineer who was also an
avid and competent bike commuter designed something other than a
cycletrack, the local advocacy organization and an "alternative
newspaper" raked him over the coals mercilessly and demanded he be fired.

Why? Because he had looked at actual crash data, examined actual
traffic patterns, noted lots of driveway and side street conflicts, and
decided a "protected cycletrack" would not be protected at all; that it
would put cyclists in danger many times per block.

Many advocates don't understand that usually, the only true "separation"
is vertical separation - that is, grade separation. The interactions at
intersections and driveways are invisible to these folks. Which is a
recipe for crashes should they get what they want.

Sometimes, perhaps most times, the best strategy is to keep cyclists
visible in the lane, and come down hard on the over privileged motorists.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[James]

On 25/11/15 13:46, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>
> Part of the problem is a lack of appreciation for the real-world
> complexities and hazards. It's really true that in my state we have
> bike advocacy organizations demanding crazy facilities, with "protected"
> cycletracks being high on the list. (Door zone bike lanes have also
> been demanded.)
>
> In one case I'm well aware of, when a traffic engineer who was also an
> avid and competent bike commuter designed something other than a
> cycletrack, the local advocacy organization and an "alternative
> newspaper" raked him over the coals mercilessly and demanded he be fired.
>
> Why? Because he had looked at actual crash data, examined actual
> traffic patterns, noted lots of driveway and side street conflicts, and
> decided a "protected cycletrack" would not be protected at all; that it
> would put cyclists in danger many times per block.
>
> Many advocates don't understand that usually, the only true "separation"
> is vertical separation - that is, grade separation. The interactions at
> intersections and driveways are invisible to these folks. Which is a
> recipe for crashes should they get what they want.
>
> Sometimes, perhaps most times, the best strategy is to keep cyclists
> visible in the lane, and come down hard on the over privileged motorists.
>

It would seem the Danes have successfully removed the hazard using their
bridge.

--
JS

[Mathias Koerber]

sadly not:

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cycle-tracks-sky-will-abound-copenhagen.html

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:29:31 +1000, James <james.e...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

--

Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

On 11/25/2015 3:25 AM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
> scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?

Thank goodness we don't have that system in the U.S..

[Frank Krygowski]

Any democracy needs provisions to guarantee that the rights of
minorities are not taken away by the majority.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/25/2015 3:07 AM, Mathias Koerber wrote:
> sadly not:
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cycle-tracks-sky-will-abound-copenhagen.html

And from that article, the regulation driving the design: "There has to
be maximum of 500 metres from any home in Copenhagen to public
transport, be it a bus stop, train station or metro station."

Simple-minded advocates sometimes say things like "We should put in
cycletracks. Copenhagen does and they have really high bike mode share!"

They ignore that Copenhagen (and Netherlands) have many dozens of
regulations and other factors that allow residents to function without
cars. The above regulation is just one example.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Mike A Schwab]

On Tuesday, November 24, 2015 at 6:09:29 PM UTC-6, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/24/2015 5:18 PM, James wrote:

<deleted>

> With "safety inflation" so rampant, maybe vertical segregation will be
> the next plea. After all, if the Dutch can do it, why can't Americans?
> http://hovenring.com/
>
> If you like, we can explore what segregation schemes actually do make
> sense. There are some I favor.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-freeway-sign-body-20151030-story.html

Just build them high enough.

[Duane]

Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.

[sms]

On 11/24/2015 2:18 PM, James wrote:

> Smarmy sarcasm aside, yes the Danes are willing to invest in real
> segregation, separating cyclists from motor vehicles where motor vehicle
> volume and speeds are such that it makes sense.
>
> Our governments still bend to the masses cries for more lanes on the
> road so they can be filled by more cars. Cars that usually only carry 1
> person (about 1.1 is the average I think), and if the US is anything
> like Australia, where 50% of car trips are up to 5km.

Depends on how good the cycling advocacy groups are and how bad the
city's public works and traffic engineers are.

Just in my area, I can see extremely well designed segregated schemes,
adequate schemes, and awful schemes.

The well designed schemes have enabled bicycle commuting to areas that
previously were not very accessible due to barriers that were difficult,
time-consuming, or dangerous to get around. Bicycle bridges and
underpasses to get past freeways, railroad tracks, and waterways have
been a big help.

I have seen the gradual improvements and taken advantage of many of
them. Lately, some cities have been removing traffic lanes and adding
bike lanes. And in San Francisco, they have banned private cars on the
busiest part of Market Street (though this has had terrible effects on
other streets). I like what San Francisco did along the Embarcadero
where there is a separated trail for those that want to use it and not
go very fast, and a bike lane for those that want to go faster.
Unfortunately, the fast bike lane is only on the Bay side. Going the
other direction is very unpleasant.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:
>
> The well designed schemes have enabled bicycle commuting to areas that
> previously were not very accessible due to barriers that were difficult,
> time-consuming, or dangerous to get around. Bicycle bridges and
> underpasses to get past freeways, railroad tracks, and waterways have
> been a big help.

I'm in favor of good accommodations for cyclists being included any time
a freeway is built. That could include bike trails parallel to the
freeway in certain places, and bike/ped access across the freeway in
other places.

Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:

Snipped

> Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
> underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
> cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
> but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.
>
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Which is exactly why they're building that bicycle/pedestrian bridge Ilinked to. I's TWO KILOMETERS to the closest bridge from this new bridge. That means it would be 4 kilometers ride to cross that river without the brige = 2 kilometers to the closest bridge and two kilometers back.

Cheers

[AMuzi]

As reported here by Mr Koerber:

http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cycle-tracks-sky-will-abound-copenhagen.html

Copenhagen to cyclists: drop dead.

--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[John B.]

What rights are those? The right to smoke dope? Or the right that
although we can't afford it we have the right to a mortgage for a big
fancy home? Or the one that says we don't have to obey traffic laws if
we don't want to?

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
wrote:

Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
bitch about it :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:53:08 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

No, I understand that you live in the "Home of the Free and the Land
of the Brave". Or is it the Land of the Free and the Home of the
Brave"?

--

Cheers,

John B.

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 6:13:53 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 10:34:41 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>
> wrote:
>

Snipped

>
> >> Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
> >> scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?
> >>
> >
> >Hmmm. Sounds like a new concept. Here in Canada the head of the party
> >with the majority of seats makes the decisions. The norm is about 30%
> >or registered voters. Parliamentary Democracy.
>
> Of course. The 30% who actually vote get to make the rules. While the
> 70% who didn't bother with all the foolishness and stayed home get to
> bitch about it :-)
>
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

That's NOT how it works here in Canada john.

Of those who vote 30% manage to vote in a government with a majority. The other 70% who voted are SOL FUBAR'd.

On top of that the 30% minority get to make the Laws for the 705 majority. Hardly democratic is it? unless like I say, you don't mind democratically elected dictatorships because here in Canada that's what we usually end up with.

Cheers

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, they're actually not building that "bicycle/pedestrian bridge," as
the article explains.

The author of the site you linked, and Mikhael Colville-Andersen, both
seem to think the plan is extreme and not justified. If the tower in
question is supposed to be (partly?) residential, and if that 500m rule
exists, it seems more reasonable for the city's zoning department to say
"don't build residences there."

In my mind, plowing a freeway through a formerly walkable/bikeable city
is a different matter. Including bike & ped accommodations should be a
minor cost increase. Requiring extremely costly bike access when a new
place is built at the end of what's effectively a peninsula seems a
different matter.

As an alternative, why not a ferry?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

I was thinking about the right to use a public road. Even if you're not
using the fastest vehicle on that road.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Duane]

I should have said 30% of voters. With 3 or 4 candidates the PM's party
usually wins with ~30% of the vote. There are no run offs.

--
duane

[Duane]

The US system, though pretty broken lately, at least has some checks and
balances. There's no impeachment in Canada. And in the US you actually
vote for the president. He's not appointed by the party with the most
seats. And the senate is also voted on. In Canada they're appointed for
life by the current PM. We call it the senate because "house of lords"
sounds bad.

--
duane

[Duane]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:13:44

> You clearly don't understand.
> We suffer under the same system here in the UK, where the current
> regime was elected by under 25% of the electorate, and less than 34%
> of those who actually voted.
> Under this first-past-the-post scheme of parliamentary "democracy",
> any vote for a losing candidate is effectively thrown away, and the
> result is that despite receiving less than 34% of votes cast, the
> Tories have a majority of seats, and can do as they please, with
> almost no way of removing them short of a revolution (which they seem
> to be doing their best to provoke).
>

Exactly. Parliamentary democracy.

--
duane

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 00:41:08 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>

wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:13:44
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>

>You clearly don't understand.
>We suffer under the same system here in the UK, where the current
>regime was elected by under 25% of the electorate, and less than 34%
>of those who actually voted.
>Under this first-past-the-post scheme of parliamentary "democracy",
>any vote for a losing candidate is effectively thrown away, and the
>result is that despite receiving less than 34% of votes cast, the
>Tories have a majority of seats, and can do as they please, with
>almost no way of removing them short of a revolution (which they seem
>to be doing their best to provoke).

I'm not sure that I completely understand the system you describe but
it appears that, in essence, a number of voters ganged (one might say)
together and voted for a single party while a large number of others
voted here and voted there and thus the cohesive group got their party
elected, which, while not, one might say, by a majority of the voters
in the country but by a cohesive group that set out to get into power
and did it.

So what is the alternate? A government elected by a bunch of
disorganized people who can't seem to organize themselves to say
nothing of a national government?

But how so "almost no way of removing them"? Are they elected for
life?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 21:06:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski

But Frank, I've read a number of U.S. Highway Codes and every one I
read specifies that a bicycle is a vehicle and that all vehicles have
the right to use public highways (excepting of course some restricted
access highways).

I have also noted that in every one of the codes I read there is an
article that specifies that a vehicle shall not impede other traffic.
and, I might add, I have observed and participated in moving certain
overly wide loads that did impede traffic and in those cases we were
required to have a police escort and in one case move between the
hours of 23:00 and 03:00 while in the city center.In that particular
instance we were also required to hire "consultants" from both the
electric and telephone companies to ensure that we didn't knock down
any wires.

Does only having only two wheels somehow change things?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Duane]

A runoff election of the top two candidates helps some.

> But how so "almost no way of removing them"? Are they elected for
> life?
> --

He means until the next election, which in Canada is called when the PM
feels like it's best for his party. I think the limit here is 5 years
but if you're an idiot you can think the time is right to call an
election early and run the risk of losing as we've just seen.

What he means is there's no impeachment process or other method to
remove a PM from power. And since his party members are usually
required by party rules to vote the party line and he has a majority of
the seats there's no way he's getting brought down.

[AMuzi]

You have just elucidated the difference between democracy
(aka 'mob rule') and a constitutional republic or a civil
society which are sorely missed here.

[AMuzi]

On 11/25/2015 5:13 PM, John B. wrote:

It's the Brave New World of the modern welfare state. About
1/3 of us work to give free stuff to the other 2/3, whether
we like it or not. Oh joy.

[AMuzi]

On 11/25/2015 6:41 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 06:13:44
> +0700 the perfect time to write:
>

> You clearly don't understand.
> We suffer under the same system here in the UK, where the current
> regime was elected by under 25% of the electorate, and less than 34%
> of those who actually voted.
> Under this first-past-the-post scheme of parliamentary "democracy",
> any vote for a losing candidate is effectively thrown away, and the
> result is that despite receiving less than 34% of votes cast, the
> Tories have a majority of seats, and can do as they please, with
> almost no way of removing them short of a revolution (which they seem
> to be doing their best to provoke).
>

We have a different system. The guy with the most chutzpah
gets to proclaim the magic words 'pen and telephone' and
becomes king.

[Duane]

The difference is the king's power is limited when he's from a different
party than that of both houses of congress. And it's restricted when
he's from a different party than one house of congress.

In a parliamentary system, this problem is removed because the majority
in the house is what gets him his office.

[Frank Krygowski]

Well, it's more accurate to say that in about half of U.S. states a
bicycle is legally a vehicle. In the other half it's not considered a
vehicle, but its operators have the same rights and duties as vehicle
operators (except those that by nature of the device cannot apply). A
fine point, admittedly, but it does affect certain rulings.

>
> I have also noted that in every one of the codes I read there is an
> article that specifies that a vehicle shall not impede other traffic.

... with certain limitations, of course.

> and, I might add, I have observed and participated in moving certain
> overly wide loads that did impede traffic and in those cases we were
> required to have a police escort and in one case move between the
> hours of 23:00 and 03:00 while in the city center.In that particular
> instance we were also required to hire "consultants" from both the
> electric and telephone companies to ensure that we didn't knock down
> any wires.
>
> Does only having only two wheels somehow change things?

In some cases, yes. But you seem to be imagining a "do not impede"
statute with absolutely no limitations. That's unrealistic.

Roads are not intended to be used ONLY by those vehicles that move at
the speed limit. (Or as it's been said, "It's an upper limit, not a
lower limit.") Consider that roads are used every day by farm tractors
and other farm equipment, by heavy tractor-trailers creeping up mountain
grades, by construction equipment, by mail trucks and delivery vehicles
that must make extremely frequent stops, by school buses, by garbage
trucks and recycling trucks, by semi-disabled vehicles limping to repair
locations, by horses pulling buggies with passengers, etc. etc.

All those are legal, and usually don't require permission or escort. If
they do cause congestion, many states allow a certain amount of
congestion - e.g. five vehicles - before any remedial action is taken.
And when (say) a truck creeping up a hill does obstruct six motorists,
the driver isn't required to pull over until he's got a safe opportunity
to do so.

Now regarding "only two wheels" - in states that don't define the
bicycle as a vehicle, it's conceivable (I haven't checked) that impeding
laws don't apply at all. In other states (including mine) there have
been rulings that the capability of the vehicle or device must be taken
into account. IOW, if a bicyclist is moving at a reasonable speed for a
bicyclist (or a tractor towing a wagon is moving at a reasonable speed
for a tractor towing a wagon) then the operator can't be prosecuted for
impeding.

The rationale on those last two was that the respective legislatures
clearly did not want to forbid the use of bicycles or tractors; so those
operators do have a right to use the road. Even if most of the
motorists would rather they didn't use the road.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

One very small example is that federal law requires foreign
illegals to be deported after completing felony sentences.
He's refused. Now what? There are a hundred other examples.

Well, nothing wrecks a mood like reading the morning papers.
I'm grumpy. Sorry to be all OT.

[Duane]

This thread has been OT for a while. <g>
Yes, the president has executive orders and veto but here its SOP.
Whatever whim he wants he gets. And they're not usually that worried
about reelection since a strong core can get them in. So there's more
incentive to play to the base which is just as polarized as in the US.

Sometime it gets them out though like this past election. But Harper
did have 10 years to do what he wanted before he pissed people off
enough to vote against him. This time there was a conscious effort to
vote more for the liberals rather than split the vote with the new
democrats and this put the liberals in. Harper's conservatives are now
the official opposition. Which means they get to sit around the house
saying stuff like "here here", appear on news programs and collect fat
pensions.

[sms]

On 11/26/2015 7:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:

> One very small example is that federal law requires foreign illegals to
> be deported after completing felony sentences. He's refused. Now what?
> There are a hundred other examples.
>
> Well, nothing wrecks a mood like reading the morning papers. I'm grumpy.
> Sorry to be all OT.

In reality, many groups are upset at Obama because deportations reached
record levels since he took office.

"Some immigrant advocates have dubbed Obama the “deporter in chief” over
the fact that his administration has deported about as many immigrants
in five years as the George W. Bush administration deported in eight years."

<http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/>

[Duane]

Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk> wrote:

> Duane <sp...@flarn.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:26:34 -0000

> Run-offs are expensive, so there is a reasonable excuse for not having
> them.
> The same effect can be achieved by Single Transferable Vote, where you
> rank the candidates in order of preference. One election is held, but
> the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, the votes
> cast for them being moved to their next preference. This is repeated
> until one candidate has over 50% of votes cast.
>
> It's a good method for producing representatives of districts, but
> still a very bad one for choosing an overall government.
> The only genuinely democratic way of doing that is by full
> proportional representation, over the whole country.
>
> So you have one election, at which you number your prospective local
> representatives in order of preference, (who form the lower house),
> AND give a vote for a party, which is used to allocate seats in the
> upper house.
> Legislation is put forward by the upper house, but has to pass in both
> houses to become law. This ensures that legislation has to be
> approved by both representatives of the majority of PEOPLE, and
> representatives of the majority of parliamentary DISTRICTS, before it
> can become law.
>

There are several alternatives to what we have and most would be better. I
think a minority government serves better than a majority. They're forced
to work together or shut it down. Maybe forcing a minority government when
a party gains less than a real majority could work.

Since any change would have to come from the one with power it's difficult
to see it happening.

--
duane

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:26:35 -0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
wrote:

About which, some prominent individual once said, "Its not perfect but
it is the best anyone has come up with so far".
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:24:25 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>

What would happen if a P.M. were to violate the law? Does he continue
in Office? Say he murders someone. Die he simply continue in office?

In the U.S. a serving officer can't be simply "impeached" he has to
break the law in order for it to happen.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:26:34 -0000 (UTC), Duane <sp...@flarn.com>
wrote:

But a percentage of the vote isn't the point, is it. It is the party
that gains more votes then the other parties. If one party gains 30%
of the total votes cast and three other parties get 23% then which
party should rule the roost?

Of course one could adopt the U.S. practice and elect the President by
a separate vote, in which case it is easy to have a President with one
itinerary and a Congress with a totally different one. Which probably
isn't a particularly logical scheme.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 22:43:25 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Duane <duane....@group-upc.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015

>Proportional representation would work better.
>That way, a party with 34% of the vote would get 34% of the seats.
>Obviously there would be a little rounding error, and it might be good
>to have the number of seats slightly variable to minimise that.
>Parties would then have to pass legislation which was supported by
>sufficient other parties to constitute a majority.
>The actual government would still be formed by the party with the
>greatest number of seats, but they wouldn't be able to pass
>legislation that was against the wishes of the majority of voters.
>A lower house could have constituency MPs to represent individual
>districts (elected by single transferable vote, which removes the need
>for multiple stages or run-off elections), with a power of veto over
>anything coming from the upper house.
>That way, everyone gets represented, and everyone gets a say in who
>forms the government.
>What's not to like?

In other words, a strong possibility of no majority in the government,
just a bunch of individuals running about trying to promote their
individual schemes?

>We already have two houses, but our "upper" house (of Lords) is filled
>with appointees for life, usually ex-politicians rewarded by their
>cronies for past service after having been rejected by the electorate.
>That system needs to go, as it doesn't represent anyone.

Exactly like the U.S. judicial system where the Supreme Court is
appointed for life.... to avoid some Leader from turfing our anyone
that would vote against his schemes.

>>> But how so "almost no way of removing them"? Are they elected for
>>> life?
>>> --
>>
>>He means until the next election, which in Canada is called when the PM
>>feels like it's best for his party. I think the limit here is 5 years
>>but if you're an idiot you can think the time is right to call an
>>election early and run the risk of losing as we've just seen.
>>
>>What he means is there's no impeachment process or other method to
>>remove a PM from power. And since his party members are usually
>>required by party rules to vote the party line and he has a majority of
>>the seats there's no way he's getting brought down.

If he commits a crime can he be tried in a court of law?

>Ours are now fixed 5 year (at least unless the majority regime decides
>to pass legislation to change that, which they could easily do).

Which seems fairly reasonable. After all a one year term would have
the elected officials all rushing madly about to get elected for 11
months of every year.

>Until the fixed 5 year term came in, a Prime Minister could call an
>election at any time - usually the time when they considered their
>chance of re-election was greatest (like Maggot Thatcher did after the
>Falklands war).

That sounds fair enough. What is the alternative? A fixed, say four
year term, Where the party tries to delay their best schemes until
close to the end of the term so they can show the electorate, just
before the election, that they really are the Good Guys?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

But there has never been a "constitutional republic or a civil
society" has there? The original Athenian system did not fit that
description and was essentially a failure. And, it might be noted,
that the original democratic system excluded women, foreigners,
slaves, and those who were not wealthy enough to provide themselves
with a full set of armor - about a years salary for a working man.

The most effective and efficient system is a dictatorship as has been
frequently proven in many countries.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:36:18 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>On 11/25/2015 5:13 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 06:53:08 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/25/2015 3:25 AM, John B. wrote:
>>>
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Well yes. It is called "democracy" I think. You know, that silly
>>>> scheme where the majority get to make the decisions?
>>>
>>> Thank goodness we don't have that system in the U.S..
>>
>> No, I understand that you live in the "Home of the Free and the Land
>> of the Brave". Or is it the Land of the Free and the Home of the
>> Brave"?
>>
>> --
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> John B.
>>
>
>It's the Brave New World of the modern welfare state. About
>1/3 of us work to give free stuff to the other 2/3, whether
>we like it or not. Oh joy.

It was Jefferson, wasn't it, that wrote that if we give the vote to
the poor that they will, quite logically, vote for more free stuff :-)
(He was right)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski

But Frank, I distinctly remember signs posted on roads in the U.S.
stating, "Slow Traffic keep right" and over here we have posted signs
"Bicycles and motorcycles keep left".

>The rationale on those last two was that the respective legislatures
>clearly did not want to forbid the use of bicycles or tractors; so those
>operators do have a right to use the road. Even if most of the
>motorists would rather they didn't use the road.

But that is democracy, isn't it? Where the majority get to make the
rules? Or do you envision a system where the minority should make the
laws?

But, given that the number of highway deaths of cyclists is, in fact,
very low in the U.S., and given that, for example, the CHP study in
Los Angeles County showed that cyclists are at fault in a majority of
the Bicycle Auto collisions, one can only wonder about the effects of
a more stringent enforcement of the law, particularly in the case of
bicycles, would be?

Perhaps a licensing system for bicycles and bicycle riders to enforce
certain standards?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/26/2015 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:

>> ... in states that don't define the

>> bicycle as a vehicle, it's conceivable (I haven't checked) that impeding
>> laws don't apply at all. In other states (including mine) there have
>> been rulings that the capability of the vehicle or device must be taken
>> into account. IOW, if a bicyclist is moving at a reasonable speed for a
>> bicyclist (or a tractor towing a wagon is moving at a reasonable speed
>> for a tractor towing a wagon) then the operator can't be prosecuted for
>> impeding.
>>
>
> But Frank, I distinctly remember signs posted on roads in the U.S.
> stating, "Slow Traffic keep right" and over here we have posted signs
> "Bicycles and motorcycles keep left".

You probably (almost) remember signs saying "Slower Traffic Keep Right,"
since that's the phrasing permitted by the MUTCD.
http://www.trafficsign.us/r4.html
But I believe that sign is used only on highways with four or more
lanes, telling slower vehicles to use the right lane.

This point has been very thoroughly discussed on various cycling
advocacy groups - serious groups, that is. The consensus has been that
unless the right lane is unusually wide, it's enough for cyclists to be
somewhere in that right lane; not necessarily at its right edge. In
general, cyclists are allowed to move leftward in that lane to deter
unsafe passes within the lane, something that's taught in essentially
all cycling education classes. In some states, that permission is
specifically stated in the traffic code.

>
>> The rationale on those last two was that the respective legislatures
>> clearly did not want to forbid the use of bicycles or tractors; so those
>> operators do have a right to use the road. Even if most of the
>> motorists would rather they didn't use the road.
>
> But that is democracy, isn't it? Where the majority get to make the
> rules? Or do you envision a system where the minority should make the
> laws?
>
> But, given that the number of highway deaths of cyclists is, in fact,
> very low in the U.S., and given that, for example, the CHP study in
> Los Angeles County showed that cyclists are at fault in a majority of
> the Bicycle Auto collisions, one can only wonder about the effects of
> a more stringent enforcement of the law, particularly in the case of
> bicycles, would be?

That issue (fault distribution between cyclists and motorists) has been
studied many times. The most common finding by far has been that the
split is very close to 50/50.

> Perhaps a licensing system for bicycles and bicycle riders to enforce
> certain standards?

That's been tried countless times. It's never proven practical.

I do favor cycling education for everyone, starting now with kids in
school. I think it should be a standard part of a kid's "physical
education". And I favor enforcement of traffic laws for cyclists.
Here's an article on that, by a gentleman I've met:
http://www.hendonpub.com/law_and_order/articles/2013/07/bicycle_law_enforcement


--
- Frank Krygowski

[Jeff Liebermann]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 07:36:18 -0600, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:

>It's the Brave New World of the modern welfare state. About
>1/3 of us work to give free stuff to the other 2/3, whether
>we like it or not. Oh joy.

Prior to becoming a recipient of socialist security, that was also my
way of thinking. I'm now 67.8 years old. Having recently morphed
from a tax paying producer, to a consumer of other people's efforts, I
find the logic somewhat less compelling. The transition is not quite
complete as I'm still working and paying my unfair share of taxes.
Patience... your time will come and we'll see if your position remains
intact.

From each according to their ability.
To each according to which politicians their PAC (political action
committee) can purchase.

--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:58:31 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

The question that enters one minds is "why do illegal immigrants" have
any right to stay in the U.S.

It might be noted that in most, perhaps all, of the countries that the
immigrants come from foreigners, i.e., non-citizens, have no rights to
stay there.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:08:48 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>Duane <sp...@flarn.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:26:34 -0000

>Run-offs are expensive, so there is a reasonable excuse for not having
>them.
>The same effect can be achieved by Single Transferable Vote, where you
>rank the candidates in order of preference. One election is held, but
>the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, the votes
>cast for them being moved to their next preference. This is repeated
>until one candidate has over 50% of votes cast.
>

What happens in the case of the "dirty bum that I wouldn't vote for if
he was the last man in the world"? Do I still have to show him on my
preference list?

>It's a good method for producing representatives of districts, but
>still a very bad one for choosing an overall government.
>The only genuinely democratic way of doing that is by full
>proportional representation, over the whole country.
>
>So you have one election, at which you number your prospective local
>representatives in order of preference, (who form the lower house),
>AND give a vote for a party, which is used to allocate seats in the
>upper house.
>Legislation is put forward by the upper house, but has to pass in both
>houses to become law. This ensures that legislation has to be
>approved by both representatives of the majority of PEOPLE, and
>representatives of the majority of parliamentary DISTRICTS, before it
>can become law.

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 21:15:31 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkr...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>On 11/26/2015 8:02 PM, John B. wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 10:21:44 -0500, Frank Krygowski wrote:
>
> >> ... in states that don't define the
>>> bicycle as a vehicle, it's conceivable (I haven't checked) that impeding
>>> laws don't apply at all. In other states (including mine) there have
>>> been rulings that the capability of the vehicle or device must be taken
>>> into account. IOW, if a bicyclist is moving at a reasonable speed for a
>>> bicyclist (or a tractor towing a wagon is moving at a reasonable speed
>>> for a tractor towing a wagon) then the operator can't be prosecuted for
>>> impeding.
>>>
>>
>> But Frank, I distinctly remember signs posted on roads in the U.S.
>> stating, "Slow Traffic keep right" and over here we have posted signs
>> "Bicycles and motorcycles keep left".
>
>You probably (almost) remember signs saying "Slower Traffic Keep Right,"
>since that's the phrasing permitted by the MUTCD.
>http://www.trafficsign.us/r4.html

I suspect that my memory predates the MUTCD, as I definitely remember
the signs "Keep Right".

>But I believe that sign is used only on highways with four or more
>lanes, telling slower vehicles to use the right lane.

I wonder though. A very heavily loaded truck, with trailer thundering
along at 30 MPH in the inside lane. I suspect that a Highway Patrol
might just suggest that he move to the outside lane.

>This point has been very thoroughly discussed on various cycling
>advocacy groups - serious groups, that is. The consensus has been that
>unless the right lane is unusually wide, it's enough for cyclists to be
>somewhere in that right lane; not necessarily at its right edge. In
>general, cyclists are allowed to move leftward in that lane to deter
>unsafe passes within the lane, something that's taught in essentially
>all cycling education classes. In some states, that permission is
>specifically stated in the traffic code.

I see. Ride where you want to and the Good Lord will take care of you?
Move left in the lane to deter unsafe passing. Right! The bicycle
pedaling along at 30 KPH and the motor vehicles at 70 - 100 KPH. Move
left young man! Don't worry the advocacy groups say it is O.K> and one
can only assume that they will pay the medical bills if they were
wrong.

Thanks but I think I'll do my utmost to take care of my self. When I
went to school and took the optional driver's training course they
even had a name for it. "Defensive Driving", or some such thing.

The theory being that if you can avoid an accident then it is a far,
far better choice than being hit by another vehicle.

Cheers,

John B.

[AMuzi]

But it has a certain beauty. Not running headlong over a
cliff is a real and valuable feature of that sort of morass.

[AMuzi]

True enough.
Polybios neatly describe the arc of governance thusly:

In the beginning, the biggest guy is chief, His progeny
become kings until their corruption and overreach result in
a coup by an oligarchy of rivals. That becomes equally
corrupt, and adds discord, until a popular revolt brings in
democracy. We're well aware of democracy's foibles from
which arise a dictator to bring order. Repeat.

[Duane]

Churchhill was certainly prominent.

Anyway, isn't this whole sub-thread in response to your saying something
like "majority rules in a democracry?"

[Frank Krygowski]

I'm sure that illegal immigrants, by definition, don't have the legal
right to stay here. (And I don't like substituting the term
"undocumented" in place of "illegal.")

But I think a major problem is the effort and expense it would require
to track down illegal immigrants and deport them. In a "no new taxes"
era, I don't foresee any major effort to go house to house checking IDs.
Can you imagine the dollar-per-deportation costs?

As with many such issues, I wonder what other countries do about this.
How do they handle it? I suspect the problem exists to some extent
anywhere a more prosperous or more peaceful country abuts a poor one or
a war-ravaged one. Certainly, one can try to keep "illegals" out; but
no barrier will be perfect. What happens next?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

?? Yes, of course. That's what the sign says. I don't understand your
confusion.

>> This point has been very thoroughly discussed on various cycling
>> advocacy groups - serious groups, that is. The consensus has been that
>> unless the right lane is unusually wide, it's enough for cyclists to be
>> somewhere in that right lane; not necessarily at its right edge. In
>> general, cyclists are allowed to move leftward in that lane to deter
>> unsafe passes within the lane, something that's taught in essentially
>> all cycling education classes. In some states, that permission is
>> specifically stated in the traffic code.
>
> I see. Ride where you want to and the Good Lord will take care of you?
> Move left in the lane to deter unsafe passing. Right! The bicycle
> pedaling along at 30 KPH and the motor vehicles at 70 - 100 KPH. Move
> left young man! Don't worry the advocacy groups say it is O.K> and one
> can only assume that they will pay the medical bills if they were
> wrong.

You write as if you've never tried this - and as if it's never come up
before in this forum.

A) First, I'm not saying to ride far left if there's room for safe
passing when the cyclist is at the right. I move right when it's safe
to. I move left when the lane is too narrow to safely share.

B) It works. I get far, far fewer unsafe close passes than before.
People I've taught to do this also agree, and have told their own
stories of success.

C) Only a tiny percentage of motorists seem irritated. It's usually
quite obvious what's going on. (And some motorists will get irritated
no matter what. Screw 'em.)

D) What's the alternative? What do you do when you're in a ten foot
lane with no rideable shoulder and an 8.5 foot truck comes up behind?
Dive off the road? No thanks!

> Thanks but I think I'll do my utmost to take care of my self. When I
> went to school and took the optional driver's training course they
> even had a name for it. "Defensive Driving", or some such thing.
>
> The theory being that if you can avoid an accident then it is a far,
> far better choice than being hit by another vehicle.

The question is, what's the best tactic to avoid getting hit by another
vehicle?

Some advocate bouncing along in the gutter and hoping that the driver is
skilled enough to precisely judge where the right edge of his vehicle
(including side mirror) is. Oh, and never, ever delaying a motorist.
Others advocate using one's right to the road, and making it perfectly
obvious when there's not enough room for safe passing.

I'm quite positive I know much more about this situation than the
average motorist. It's also my skin in the game, so to speak.
Therefore, I prefer to exercise some control.

If you'd prefer to trust some semi-competent driver's judgment, of
course you have that option. It's not illegal to put yourself at risk
that way.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/27/2015 3:37 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 08:58:31 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/26/2015 7:24 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>
>>> One very small example is that federal law requires foreign illegals to
>>> be deported after completing felony sentences. He's refused. Now what?
>>> There are a hundred other examples.
>>>
>>> Well, nothing wrecks a mood like reading the morning papers. I'm grumpy.
>>> Sorry to be all OT.
>>
>> In reality, many groups are upset at Obama because deportations reached
>> record levels since he took office.
>>
>> "Some immigrant advocates have dubbed Obama the “deporter in chief” over
>> the fact that his administration has deported about as many immigrants
>> in five years as the George W. Bush administration deported in eight years."
>>
>> <http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/02/u-s-deportations-of-immigrants-reach-record-high-in-2013/>
>>
>
> The question that enters one minds is "why do illegal immigrants" have
> any right to stay in the U.S.

No right, but their employers want them to stay and the federal
government make a lot of money from them while the cost of services is
borne by the states.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/business/illegal-immigrants-are-bolstering-social-security-with-billions.html>

Ideally, we'd implement a system like Reagan implemented with guest
workers. This is what most countries do that need laborers. But Reagan
is like a left-wing liberal compared to the current Republicans in
congress, so there is no chance of another guest worker program.

About 60% of agricultural workers are illegals. It would cause a major
disruption if they were all deported. Obama has concentrated on
deporting criminals, not non-criminal (other than being here illegally)
laborers.

"Boosting the number of deportations in recent years are a program
dating to the Bush years that targets "fugitive" aliens, as well as a
program known as Secure Communities, under which federal immigration
authorities are kept apprised of people who are fingerprinted at the
state and local level."

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:57:47 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:37:33

>No, you leave them unranked, so that your vote cannot be transferred
>to them under any circumstances.
>
>The greatest advantage is that it prevents a candidate getting elected
>because the vote against them is split between two or more
>alternatives with similar policies to each other.

I'm not sure I see the logic here. Lets say that he are a thousand
voters in one location and three individuals running for a political
position. Only about 50% of eligible voters bother going to the poles
and one candidate gets, let us say, 35% of the votes cast. the two
remaining candidates get 33% and 32% of the votes.

Are you saying that as no one got a majority of the votes cast that no
one gets elected ?

I'm not sure that I would agree. My guy is running on a platform of
reducing government spending and reducing taxes while one of the other
guys is arguing that illegal immigrants should be granted citizen
status and the other is arguing that the internal combustion engine
should be scrapped as it is the fundamental cause of global warming.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:36:28 -0500, Duane <duane....@group-upc.com>

Although I believe that is still the fundamental concept threads do
take on a life of their own as time goes by :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Other countries do it in several ways. Use of a "Identification Card"
or "House Registration" papers which record the individual's legal
residence.

I believe that the U.S. Military Services do something similar with
their "I.D. Cards" and recording the "Home of Record".

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 07:56:21 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

In other words, the U.S. agricultural businesses are largely based on
disobeying the federal the laws? And the "cost of services is
borne by the states" which I assume means that the tax payers of the
States pay high taxes to support these Illegals.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:43:50 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:02:24

>Only if they're idiots.
>If you get at least a reasonable number of competent representatives,
>you get government by consensus, rather than by edict.

You are asking for a lot. My (admittedly limited) experience is that
most politicians are professional politicians - that is how they make
their living - and they will follow any path that ensures that they
get elected.

As for consensus, I'm not sure about that, at all. From what I read,
no matter who gets elected there is a substantial number arguing that
he is a "damned fool" or a "thieving rascal".

I suggest that the only method of arriving at a consensus is to shoot
the dissenters, as the Russians and Chinese did. While that is not
100% effective it does tend to quiet the ranting and raving to a
moderate level :-)

--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:45:17 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015 08:02:24

>Recall schemes can be effective.

You mean something like, "Oh! He refuses to support abortions" or,
"Oh! He doesn't support increased immigration of those poor refugees".
Lets get rid of him!
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

Something similar gets proposed here from time to time, but there are
problems with the scheme. For example, there seem to be significant
numbers of born-in-the-USA folks who object strongly to carrying a
national ID. Some are even outraged that we have social security numbers.

More to the point, I think, is that the lack of such a card wouldn't
mean anything unless the government asked to see it. Going door to door
asking to see citizenship cards would probably (and somewhat ironically)
trigger a right wing revolt. Anyway, the government would never be able
to afford the effort.

Consequently, lack of such a card might affect only those illegals
caught in crimes, which is a tiny percentage. It's similar to the
problem of unlicensed drivers. They can drive for decades if they're
smart enough to be careful.

BTW, there is a "green card" which signifies official permission for a
non-citizen to get a job in the U.S. Shockingly, there are business
people who don't care if a person has that green card. There are
business owners who prefer to hire people without it, because they are
willing to work for low wages and they rarely cause trouble by (say)
demanding humane working conditions.

It's complicated.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/27/2015 4:28 PM, John B. wrote:

<snip>

> In other words, the U.S. agricultural businesses are largely based on
> disobeying the federal the laws? And the "cost of services is
> borne by the states" which I assume means that the tax payers of the
> States pay high taxes to support these Illegals.

Yes. That's why you see some states, like Arizona, doing things that
encourage illegals to leave. They don't have the authority to deport
them, and if they stay they are required to provide basic services.

Providing services to illegals is a Catch-22. You have to provide
medical services and schooling because the alternative is much worse.
Similarly, issuing driver's licenses may seem counter-intuitive but the
alternative is that they will be driving with licenses and without
insurance, which is worse.

The states and the federal government are under tremendous pressure by
agribusiness to not deport illegals.

Some of the Republican candidates were actually in favor of a realistic
plan to deal with illegal immigration but they had to retreat because to
win the primaries you have to appeal to the uneducated white voters.
Rubio was hurt because he was in favor of doing something practical.

With a guest worker program, the workers can go back and forth to and
from Mexico so there is less incentive to bring their families. Instead
they come to work and send money back.

[avag...@gmail.com]

Cheers

awww architects..FOOOP..whenever this stuff makes your head spin clockwise go to Google Images for Spanish Modern

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 3:13:10 PM UTC-7, AMuzi wrote:
> On 11/25/2015 2:54 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> > On Wednesday, November 25, 2015 at 2:31:48 PM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> >> On 11/25/2015 1:53 PM, sms wrote:
> > Snipped
> >> Freeways form significant barriers to their crossing, and bridges or
> >> underpasses are often miles apart, with former roads cut off into
> >> cul-de-sacs. These situations are only minor problems for motorists,
> >> but can be big problems for a pedestrian or bicyclist.
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> - Frank Krygowski
> >
> > Which is exactly why they're building that bicycle/pedestrian bridge Ilinked to. I's TWO KILOMETERS to the closest bridge from this new bridge. That means it would be 4 kilometers ride to cross that river without the brige = 2 kilometers to the closest bridge and two kilometers back.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
>
> As reported here by Mr Koerber:
>
> http://www.treehugger.com/bikes/cycle-tracks-sky-will-abound-copenhagen.html
>
> Copenhagen to cyclists: drop dead.

>
> --
> Andrew Muzi
> <www.yellowjersey.org/>
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971

ANDREW lets go we can rent a coupla bikes get stoned n hang into a bar for some crazy pussy...

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
Snipped

> Although I believe that is still the fundamental concept threads do
> take on a life of their own as time goes by :-)
> --
>
> Cheers,
>
> John B.

No, the threads get HIJACKED by people who can't be bothered to start a new thread when the topic shifts. This makes it hard to find threads with relevant information when doing a search. I believe it's one of the contributing factors to the shrinking Usenet memberships an d usage.

Look at how few posts in this thread are even remotely related to the Copenhagen bridge.

I dont let it bother me anymore. Like many others if I need timely information or want to discuss a particular BICYCLING relate topic I now go to a bicycling forum.

Andrew is one of the few who'll post RELEVANT data to a bicycling related thread.

Cheers

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 17:24:01 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

I find your explanations edifying :-) Although a bit mystifying as
I've spent more then half my life in foreign countries and not a
single one of them provides such services to non-citizens.

One can only speculate on why the U.S. does.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 19:46:59 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Yes, I've read abut that. Strange though, I served with quite a number
of these folks during my 20 years in the Military and I never saw or
heard a single one of them rise in revolt to having their very own
military I.D. Card, complete with photo and individual identification
number, or even their very own set of "dog tags" with their
identification number embossed on them.

>More to the point, I think, is that the lack of such a card wouldn't
>mean anything unless the government asked to see it. Going door to door
>asking to see citizenship cards would probably (and somewhat ironically)
>trigger a right wing revolt. Anyway, the government would never be able
>to afford the effort.

In most countries that have I.D. cards one has to show one's card to
do anything official - open a bank account, cash a check, get a credit
card, do any business at a government office, even pawning one's gold
chain requires an I.D. card. After all, how else would one know who
you are?

>
>Consequently, lack of such a card might affect only those illegals
>caught in crimes, which is a tiny percentage. It's similar to the
>problem of unlicensed drivers. They can drive for decades if they're
>smart enough to be careful.

Again, in countries that use them... Stop by the hospital? Show the
card, Apply for old age benefits? Show the card. Rent a room? Show the
card.

>BTW, there is a "green card" which signifies official permission for a
>non-citizen to get a job in the U.S. Shockingly, there are business
>people who don't care if a person has that green card. There are
>business owners who prefer to hire people without it, because they are
>willing to work for low wages and they rarely cause trouble by (say)
>demanding humane working conditions.
>
>It's complicated.

Not really. Pass a law that says that an individual that hires an
illegal worker is subject to 5 years in jail and a fine of 10,000
dollars, and a company that employs them is subject to a 100,000
dollar fine.

Of course it is possible to rationalize all kinds of excuses not to do
something but in reality the solution is quite simple, enact a law
penalizing the individual who does the deed and enforce it.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[sms]

If you're not going to deport illegals then it makes sense to provide
health services, especially when you look at where so many work,
restaurants, meat-packing, and agriculture. Do you want their children
wandering the streets during the day or do you want them in school?

They do not qualify for welfare like food stamps, they cannot collect
Social Security or qualify for Medicare even though they pay into them.

The logical thing is guest worker programs. Even the darling of the
right-wing wackos, Ronald Reagan, realized this (he also signed the bill
providing emergency medical treatment regardless of the ability to pay).
But today's Republican party is dominated by racists like Donald Trump
who gain the support of uneducated white voters by talking tough about
immigration while offering no practical solutions. George W. Bush wanted
to take on immigration but he was shot down by the tea-baggers in his
own party. Marco Rubio suffered a similar fate when he proposed
immigration reform.

Not to be outdone in the craziness, Scott Walker proposed a wall between
the U.S. and Canada, to complement Trump's wall between the U.S. and
Mexico. Of course neither will ever be constructed.

[sms]

On 11/28/2015 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:

> Not really. Pass a law that says that an individual that hires an
> illegal worker is subject to 5 years in jail and a fine of 10,000
> dollars, and a company that employs them is subject to a 100,000
> dollar fine.

There was a program like that in the U.S.. The corporations that benefit
from illegal immigration fought e-Verify with a passion because they
would not be able to hire and exploit enough low-wage workers. Right
wingers didn't like it because a lack of illegal workers would drive up
wages. Progressives didn't like it because they would rather have
employed illegal immigrants than unemployed illegal immigrants, for
obvious reasons. I think that the program still exists but it is ignored
by those that benefit from ignoring it and there is no constituency with
any power that wants it enforced.

> Of course it is possible to rationalize all kinds of excuses not to do
> something but in reality the solution is quite simple, enact a law
> penalizing the individual who does the deed and enforce it.

The solution is not simple. Anytime anyone tells you that there is a
simple solution to a complex issue do not believe it.

[Frank Krygowski]

The complication is in passing that law.

--
- Frank Krygowski

[Frank Krygowski]

On 11/27/2015 11:22 PM, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
>
> No, the threads get HIJACKED by people who can't be bothered to start a new thread when the topic shifts.

If you're going to be a net nanny, shouldn't you put your "HIJACKED"
complaint in a different thread? Or at least change the subject line?

--
- Frank Krygowski

[AMuzi]

There are many ways to decide when there's no majority:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/town%E2%80%99s-mayoral-election-decided-by-coin-toss-223602840.html

[AMuzi]

On 11/27/2015 6:28 PM, John B. wrote:

Correct.
Even moreso as regards domestic servants. Shameless.

[AMuzi]

Complicated, yes, on this we agree.
People argue about everything (which is fine) but the trend
seems clear:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/jul/23/rick-perry/rick-perry-claim-about-3000-homicides-illegal-immi/

p.s. I selected a left wing source to get a feel for the
scope of this.

[AMuzi]

I'm no saint in that regard but the conversations here
sometimes take an interesting turn such that I can't help
myself.

[AMuzi]

Enhaced voter fraud is a part of the reason, and that's not
accidental. Social services to non citizens may seem a
'problem' to your average taxpayer but to the civil unions
and even more to outside contractors it's an 'opportunity'.

Not everyone's interests align here, by a good wide margin.

[AMuzi]

You describe the laws pretty well, you starry eyed idealist.

After a telephone call to the local congressman reminding
him of recent campaign contributions, case is closed, no
fine, no penalty.

[sms]

LOL, you need to stop watching Fox News, reading Breitbart, listening to
Hannity and Limbaugh, and actually believing any of it.

Of all the manufactured issues by the right wing, voter fraud is one of
the ones with the least credibility.

The reality is that the GOP is very big on voter suppression, and one
way of promoting it is to create the myth of massive voter fraud.

Due to Donald Trump, this election may be the first one in a very long
time where the GOP establishment is NOT trying to ensure that only
uneducated white people go to the polls.


<http://www.factcheck.org/2013/01/voting-conspiracies/>
<http://www.snopes.com/politics/ballot/2012fraud.asp>
<http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nicole-hemmer/2014/10/21/whats-really-behind-the-gops-voter-id-and-voter-fraud-claims>

[Sir Ridesalot]

I put it here so others would read it and as a directt reply to a post in the thread.

Cheers

[Sir Ridesalot]

On Saturday, November 28, 2015 at 9:33:33 AM UTC-5, Frank Krygowski wrote:
> On 11/28/2015 6:28 AM, John B. wrote:

Snipped

>> It's complicated.
> >
> > Not really. Pass a law that says that an individual that hires an
> > illegal worker is subject to 5 years in jail and a fine of 10,000
> > dollars, and a company that employs them is subject to a 100,000
> > dollar fine.
>
> The complication is in passing that law.
>
> --
> - Frank Krygowski

Especially when illegal workers are a HUGE benefit to those who pass the laws or get to mak the laws.

Cheers

[AMuzi]

On 11/28/2015 4:04 PM, Phil W Lee wrote:
> John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:28:34

> If a sufficiently large number of those he is supposed to represent
> call for it, and the resultant poll of all of those he is supposed to
> represent confirms it, then yes, of oourse.
> That is called "accountability".
>

Goes both ways:
http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/152346265.html

In Mr Walker's case, three election wins in four years.
Some constituents do indeed viscerally hate the man. They
are a minority.

[sms]

On 11/28/2015 2:30 PM, AMuzi wrote:

> In Mr Walker's case, three election wins in four years.
> Some constituents do indeed viscerally hate the man. They are a minority.

How are his plans for the wall between Canada and the U.S. coming?

He's yet another Republican nut job. But it is sad that G-d has been
jerking him around:

"This is God’s plan for me and I am humbled to be a candidate for
President of the United States.”

"Today, I believe that I am being called to lead by helping to clear the
field in this race so that a positive, conservative message can rise to
the top of the field. With this in mind, I will suspend my campaign
immediately."

G-d, what a prankster she is; first telling him to run then telling him
to drop out.

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 09:33:27 -0500, Frank Krygowski

Certainly, far better to simply spend some more money, rationalize the
problem, stroke some more people, gather some more votes....
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 05:50:50 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

Sorry, but the solution is simple.

It is your politics that are complex. Trying, desperately, to discover
a solution that pleases everyone. But it is your system, so revel in
it :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

Well, why not. After all the worst that can happen if that they have a
baby, who, of course, is a U.S. citizen, whereupon they can apply for
permanent stay in the U.S. and join the thousands that have already
done that.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I find modern politics sort of amusing as I am old enough to have sat
through town meetings where the elected officials have to stand up on
their hind legs and answer questions that the electorate ask. After
which the vote is made for who will run the town next year.

When Old Man Jones, who has a raft of friends and relatives, asks why
his street was the last one plowed in the big December snow storm the
Highway Manager has to do some pretty fast thinking, or maybe he might
be out of a job next year :-(

Strange how having to actually answer for one's acts sort of changes
things :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

What! Domestic servants, already? I assume that as what I read on the
Internet indicates that the modern American man can't support a wife
and family the wife must work so one needs servants to mind the kids ?
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 05:29:30 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>

Why build a wall? Just make a law penalizing those who benefit from
the illegal's :-)

Of course spending few million to build a wall will undoubtedly
benefit some people :-)
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

I can only assume that the O.P. doesn't carry his lunch as sitting
around with the lads at lunch time, everyone opening his lunch pail
(Or Brown Bag) to discover that Herself packed for lunch. You get
conversations that start out with "J-----! Will you look at that! Spam
Again!" and rapidly morph into "Hey! How do you like them Dodgers?".
--

Cheers,

John B.

[John B.]

On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 22:35:06 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
wrote:

>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Sat, 28 Nov 2015 07:28:34
>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>

>>On Fri, 27 Nov 2015 21:57:47 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>John B. <sloc...@gmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2015 18:37:33

>>>+0700 the perfect time to write:
>>>

>>>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2015 23:08:48 +0000, Phil W Lee <ph...@lee-family.me.uk>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>

>>>>>Duane <sp...@flarn.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2015 11:26:34 -0000

>>>>>(UTC) the perfect time to write:

>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>I should have said 30% of voters. With 3 or 4 candidates the PM's party
>>>>>>usually wins with ~30% of the vote. There are no run offs.
>>>>>
>>>>>Run-offs are expensive, so there is a reasonable excuse for not having
>>>>>them.
>>>>>The same effect can be achieved by Single Transferable Vote, where you
>>>>>rank the candidates in order of preference. One election is held, but
>>>>>the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, the votes
>>>>>cast for them being moved to their next preference. This is repeated
>>>>>until one candidate has over 50% of votes cast.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>What happens in the case of the "dirty bum that I wouldn't vote for if
>>>>he was the last man in the world"? Do I still have to show him on my
>>>>preference list?
>>>
>>>No, you leave them unranked, so that your vote cannot be transferred
>>>to them under any circumstances.
>>>
>>>The greatest advantage is that it prevents a candidate getting elected
>>>because the vote against them is split between two or more
>>>alternatives with similar policies to each other.
>>
>>I'm not sure I see the logic here. Lets say that he are a thousand
>>voters in one location and three individuals running for a political
>>position. Only about 50% of eligible voters bother going to the poles
>>and one candidate gets, let us say, 35% of the votes cast. the two
>>remaining candidates get 33% and 32% of the votes.
>>

>Well, having only 3 candidates or only a 50% turnout would both be
>astonishingly low under such a system, but to some extent, the exact
>figures are irrelevant.

>
>>Are you saying that as no one got a majority of the votes cast that no
>>one gets elected ?
>

>No, the candidate who got 32% would be eliminated, and all the votes
>cast for them would instead be allocated to their 2nd preference
>candidate. With only 2 candidates, one would therefore have over 50%.
>>

You mean that I vote for My Guy and if he doesn't win my vote get
counted in support of "That Stupid F--- that I wouldn't let clean my
furnace"?

I don't think I like your system at all.

>>I'm not sure that I would agree. My guy is running on a platform of
>>reducing government spending and reducing taxes while one of the other
>>guys is arguing that illegal immigrants should be granted citizen
>>status and the other is arguing that the internal combustion engine
>>should be scrapped as it is the fundamental cause of global warming.
>

>You have only three candidates, all standing on only one policy?
>Get real!

I could, certainly. We could discuss both foreign and domestic policy,
what the various candidates suggest for a financial plan to support
retired folks, a socialistic medical care plan, and so on... but I
thought it would save a bit of space to use just three examples.
--

Cheers,

John B.

[Frank Krygowski]

A few million won't build much of a wall.


--
- Frank Krygowski

[sms]

On 11/29/2015 3:41 AM, John B. wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2015 05:50:50 -0800, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/28/2015 3:28 AM, John B. wrote:
>>
>>> Not really. Pass a law that says that an individual that hires an
>>> illegal worker is subject to 5 years in jail and a fine of 10,000
>>> dollars, and a company that employs them is subject to a 100,000
>>> dollar fine.
>>
>> There was a program like that in the U.S.. The corporations that benefit
>>from illegal immigration fought e-Verify with a passion because they
>> would not be able to hire and exploit enough low-wage workers. Right
>> wingers didn't like it because a lack of illegal workers would drive up
>> wages. Progressives didn't like it because they would rather have
>> employed illegal immigrants than unemployed illegal immigrants, for
>> obvious reasons. I think that the program still exists but it is ignored
>> by those that benefit from ignoring it and there is no constituency with
>> any power that wants it enforced.
>>
>>> Of course it is possible to rationalize all kinds of excuses not to do
>>> something but in reality the solution is quite simple, enact a law
>>> penalizing the individual who does the deed and enforce it.
>>
>> The solution is not simple. Anytime anyone tells you that there is a
>> simple solution to a complex issue do not believe it.
>
> Sorry, but the solution is simple.

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H. L. Mencken

[avag...@gmail.com]

On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 9:22:48 PM UTC-7, Sir Ridesalot wrote:
> On Friday, November 27, 2015 at 7:28:43 PM UTC-5, John B. wrote:
> Snipped
> > Although I believe that is still the fundamental concept threads do
> > take on a life of their own as time goes by :-)
> > --
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > John B.
>
> No, the threads get HIJACKED by people who can't be bothered to start a new thread when the topic shifts. This makes it hard to find threads with relevant information when doing a search. I believe it's one of the contributing factors to the shrinking Usenet memberships an d usage.
>
> Look at how few posts in this thread are even remotely related to the Copenhagen bridge.
>
> I dont let it bother me anymore. Like many others if I need timely information or want to discuss a particular BICYCLING relate topic I now go to a bicycling forum.
>
> Andrew is one of the few who'll post RELEVANT data to a bicycling related thread.
>
> Cheers

itsa tourism thing....show and glow....feel good yawl got some pull...

traveling from the BRIDGE THING to Walker et al in the Mississippi of the North no big deal....