Harry: Running A Kennel?
David Loewe, Jr.
"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
violation."
--
"Seen through the glow of a building orgasm, a woman seems to
blaze with angelic glory."
Larry Niven - Ringworld
David Goldfarb
David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030327
>
>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
>violation."
I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
--
David Goldfarb | "Oh no, foolish Jed, you have let out
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | the verbal gerbils!"
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | -- _Sandman_ #11
Dorothy J Heydt
David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>In article <ucr1f51fflvklseam...@4ax.com>,
>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030327
>>
>>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
>>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
>>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
>>violation."
>
>I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
>Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
(Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
down to Massachusetts. I guess they assumed you were already IN
Massachusetts if you were reading the page. Though considering
how small the northeastern States are (they were established when
the only form of transportation was feet), you'd think they'd
want to be a little more specific. On the other hand, maybe they
assumed everyone reading the page was either in Massachusetts or
close enough to it that they'd recognize all the place names.
/shrug
--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at hotmail dot com
Should you wish to email me, you'd better use the hotmail edress.
Kithrup is getting too damn much spam, even with the sysop's filters.
cryptoguy
> In article <KsLDsI.2...@kithrup.com>,
>
> David Goldfarb <goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
> >In article <ucr1f51fflvklseam2nbik9ebcpl1r4...@4ax.com>,> >>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/9110...
>
> >>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
> >>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
> >>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
> >>violation."
>
> >I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
> >Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
>
> I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
> (Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
> down to Massachusetts. I guess they assumed you were already IN
> Massachusetts if you were reading the page. Though considering
> how small the northeastern States are (they were established when
> the only form of transportation was feet), you'd think they'd
> want to be a little more specific. On the other hand, maybe they
> assumed everyone reading the page was either in Massachusetts or
> close enough to it that they'd recognize all the place names.
That's the website for the Worcester Telegram, a newspaper. If you
entered at the site's front page, you'd have seen "Worcester,
Massachusetts" on the banner in large friendly letters. I guess they
didn't feel that every single page had to specify the state.
pt
Will in New Haven
> In article <KsLDsI.2...@kithrup.com>,
>
> David Goldfarb <goldf...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>
> >>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
> >>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
> >>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
> >>violation."
>
> >I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
> >Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
>
> I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
> (Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
> down to Massachusetts. I guess they assumed you were already IN
> Massachusetts if you were reading the page. Though considering
> how small the northeastern States are (they were established when
> the only form of transportation was feet), you'd think they'd
> want to be a little more specific. On the other hand, maybe they
> assumed everyone reading the page was either in Massachusetts or
> close enough to it that they'd recognize all the place names.
>
They simply assume that everyone actually lives in Massachusetts or
wants to live in Massachusetts.
--
Will in New Haven
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030327
>>>
>>>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
>>>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
>>>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
>>>violation."
>>
>>I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
>>Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
>
>I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
>(Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
>down to Massachusetts.
Hmmm...
I looked at the top of the page saw a reference to Worcester and assumed
it was Massachusetts.
Revisiting the page, I see that this reference is gone now.
>I guess they assumed you were already IN
>Massachusetts if you were reading the page. Though considering
>how small the northeastern States are (they were established when
>the only form of transportation was feet), you'd think they'd
>want to be a little more specific. On the other hand, maybe they
>assumed everyone reading the page was either in Massachusetts or
>close enough to it that they'd recognize all the place names.
>
>/shrug
--
"There's nothing in the streets looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-bye
And the parting on the left are now parting on the right
And the beards have all grown longer overnight"
- Pete Townshend
Dorothy J Heydt
I can think of one reason for wanting to live in Massachusetts.
If you lived in or near Westwood MA, you could apply for a job at
Turbine, creators of Lord of the Rings Online. Other than that
... we read about horrid rain/snow/floods they get every winter,
and cheer on the brave Turbine staff who somehow get to work
(most days) to keep the game running.
I have never lived in snow country. I don't think I could do it.
Dorothy J Heydt
Well, I clicked on "Home" and I saw nothing whatever that
specified Massachusetts. I noodged around several other pages on
the site and none of them *ever* specified Massachusetts, though
I eventually saw enough placenames that were vaguely
recognizable, that I could make a fairly good guess.
Now I've just taken a look at the home page of KCBS and it
doesn't say "California" at the top of the page either. On the
other hand, it does say "San Francisco - Oakland - San Jose", and
I suspect quite a few people would be able to place San Francisco.
And if they can't, there's a picture about three inches from the
top showing a successful congressional candidate in front of a
montage of (a) the Bear Flag, (b) the state's outline," and (c)
the name "CALIFORNIA."
Dorothy J Heydt
David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:16:21 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>wrote:
>
>>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>>>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030327
>>>>
>>>>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
>>>>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
>>>>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
>>>>violation."
>>>
>>>I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
>>>Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
>>
>>I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
>>(Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
>>down to Massachusetts.
>
>Hmmm...
>
>I looked at the top of the page saw a reference to Worcester and assumed
>it was Massachusetts.
But then, you have to KNOW that Worcester is in Massachusetts.
And/or, that there's no other Worcester any closer than the
original one in England.
Tim McDaniel
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
Britain.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
>>On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 16:16:21 GMT, djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt)
>>wrote:
>>>David Goldfarb <gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu> wrote:
>>>>David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>>http://www.telegram.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091103/NEWS/911030327
>>>>>
>>>>>"Voters last night added language to a town bylaw that will make it
>>>>>illegal to own more than three cats without a kennel license, though
>>>>>Selectman Steven Sullivan said housing three felines was already a
>>>>>violation."
>>>>
>>>>I doubt that Harry was planning to move from southern California to
>>>>Worcester, Massachusetts in any event.
>>>
>>>I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
>>>(Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
>>>down to Massachusetts.
>>
>>Hmmm...
>>
>>I looked at the top of the page saw a reference to Worcester and assumed
>>it was Massachusetts.
>
>But then, you have to KNOW that Worcester is in Massachusetts.
>And/or, that there's no other Worcester any closer than the
>original one in England.
Which is why I cheerfully labeled my belief as an assumption. A leap of
faith. A scientific, wild-assed guess.
--
"I think between us, Bill Clinton and I have settled any
lingering myths about the brilliance of Rhodes scholars."
Kris Kristofferson
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>
>The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
>earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>Britain.
When did they tame horses and oxen? Invent the wheel? Chariots? Carts?
Wagons?
;-)
--
"I thought that you might have some advice to give ...
On how to be... Insensitive."
- Jann Arden
Dorothy J Heydt
Heh. I meant transportation from one colony to another, and you
knew what I meant.
Why do you think the western States are so big? Because by that
time the railroad and the telegraph had been invented.
Kip Williams
> Though considering
> how small the northeastern States are (they were established when
> the only form of transportation was feet), you'd think
...
When did they invent horses again?
(Yeah, I know. Horses got feet.)
Kip W
Tim McDaniel
>wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>>
>> The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail
>> the earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>> Britain.
>
> When did they tame horses and oxen?
That was my first thought too, but then noticed that she didn't say
*human* feet.
> Invent the wheel? Chariots? Carts? Wagons?
I don't know of any examples of them being used for transportation
without the motive power coming from feet.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Tim McDaniel
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <hcslfp$inb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <KsLEJ...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>>
>>The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
>>earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>>Britain.
>
>Heh. I meant transportation from one colony to another, and you
>knew what I meant.
To descend towards seriousness, water travel and railroads were and
are the best choices for bulk transport. Water travel is also great
for areas with a coast and harbors but with relatively few, bad, or
unsafe roads, and I suspect (with no evidence) that those northeastern
states fit into those criteria.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
cryptoguy
> In article <4e4c5048-3ea0-4bf6-ba17-8bf9b415c...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
Are you running Lynx or some other non-graphical browser? I just did
what you describe above. See the big "Telegram.com" banner at the top?
Look directly under the '..ram.com' part. It says "Worcester,
Massachusetts".
pt
Dorothy J Heydt
>wrote:
>
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
>>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>>
>>The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
>>earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>>Britain.
>
>When did they tame horses and oxen? Invent the wheel? Chariots? Carts?
>Wagons?
Even with wheels and wheeled vehicles, the speed was limited to
that of the feet of the animals who were pulling them.
Dorothy J Heydt
cryptoguy <treif...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 4, 2:10�pm, djhe...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
>> >> I went to the URL given and had to click through several pages
>> >> (Home, Local, et cetera) before I could finally pin the locale
>> >> down to Massachusetts....
>>
>Are you running Lynx or some other non-graphical browser? I just did
>what you describe above. See the big "Telegram.com" banner at the top?
>Look directly under the '..ram.com' part. It says "Worcester,
>Massachusetts".
So it does. On the home page only. (Bad eyes, no biscuit.)
NB I found myself typing "whom page", which has got to mean
something but I don't know what.
Running IE some version or other, by the way.
Dorothy J Heydt
Exactly.
Unless there was somewhere with icy roads in winter in which
goods could be sent by bobsled, downhill only.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> In article <hcslfp$inb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
> Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
> >In article <KsLEJ...@kithrup.com>,
> >Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
> >>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
> >>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
> >
> >The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
> >earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
> >Britain.
>
> Heh. I meant transportation from one colony to another, and you
> knew what I meant.
Boats were a form of transportation that could be used to get from one
colony to another.
The risks of hyperbole online.
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of
_Future Imperfect: Technology and Freedom in an Uncertain World_,
Cambridge University Press.
David Friedman
djh...@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote:
> >That's the website for the Worcester Telegram, a newspaper. If you
> >entered at the site's front page, you'd have seen "Worcester,
> >Massachusetts" on the banner in large friendly letters. I guess they
> >didn't feel that every single page had to specify the state.
>
> Well, I clicked on "Home" and I saw nothing whatever that
> specified Massachusetts. I noodged around several other pages on
> the site and none of them *ever* specified Massachusetts, though
> I eventually saw enough placenames that were vaguely
> recognizable, that I could make a fairly good guess.
When I click "home," I get a page which says, at the top,
telegram.com
Worcester, Massachusetts.
Of course, given the nature of web pages, it's possible that it only
says that part of the time.
Tim McDaniel
Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>Unless there was somewhere with icy roads in winter in which
>goods could be sent by bobsled, downhill only.
I once read that that was a smuggling technique on the Canadian border
(perhaps during the War of 1812?). Build a house, load it with goods,
and, aw, golly, you just happened to screw up the foundation and it
happened to slide down the slope to the other side of the border.
My BS detector goes off strongly for that story -- if nothing else,
the border was long and mostly unpatrolled, even a shack is a fair
amount of work, security and reciprocity is hard -- but that's was I
read.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Keith F. Lynch
> When I click "home," I get a page which says, at the top,
> telegram.com
> Worcester, Massachusetts.
> Of course, given the nature of web pages, it's possible that it only
> says that part of the time.
Maybe it blinks it on and off, to spell out its name in Morse code.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Keith F. Lynch
>> Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>> Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they
>>> were established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>> The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail
>> the earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>> Britain.
You can't do that today, as the Atlantic doesn't freeze solid even in
mid-winter. I blame global warming.
> Heh. I meant transportation from one colony to another, and you
> knew what I meant.
Have you read Ben Franklin's autobiography? As a young man he moved
from Massachusetts to Pennsylvania. He did so in the usual way:
By ship.
> Why do you think the western States are so big? Because by that
> time the railroad and the telegraph had been invented.
I thought it was because their population density was low when they
were admitted into the union. There's a certain minimum total
population a territory has to have before it can be granted statehood.
cryptoguy
> In article <lvn3f5lc20mlhcs2frh858th3easgpq...@4ax.com>,> >On Wed, 4 Nov 2009 19:42:49 +0000 (UTC), t...@panix.com (Tim McDaniel)
> >wrote:
>
> >>Dorothy J Heydt <djhe...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>
> >>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
> >>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>
> >>The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
> >>earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
> >>Britain.
>
> >When did they tame horses and oxen? Invent the wheel? Chariots? Carts?
> >Wagons?
>
> Even with wheels and wheeled vehicles, the speed was limited to
> that of the feet of the animals who were pulling them.
I beg to differ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Simon_Stevins_zeilwagen_voor_Prins_Maurits_1649.jpg
pt
Kip Williams
> Dorothy J Heydt<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>> Why do you think the western States are so big? Because by that
>> time the railroad and the telegraph had been invented.
>
> I thought it was because their population density was low when they
> were admitted into the union. There's a certain minimum total
> population a territory has to have before it can be granted statehood.
60,000, apparently. That made me wonder about Alaska, but apparently
they even had twice that many people in 1950.
Sixth wealthiest state per capita? Who knew. I'm guessing those
government giveaways help somewhat.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
That really depends on your definition of giveaway. It seems that, in
Alaska, they believe that those royalties for oil and gas exploitation
on public land belong to the *people* and they give them some of that
money every year.
--
"He who made kittens put snakes in the grass"
Ian Anderson
Tim McDaniel
>> were admitted into the union. There's a certain minimum total
>> population a territory has to have before it can be granted
>> statehood.
>
>60,000, apparently.
Cite, please?
The US COnstitution has no such provision. Nevada got statehood in
1864; the 1870 census showed 42,491 inhabitants
<http://nevada-history.org/charts.html>.
US states got admitted when Congress thought it best. My impression
(I think from recent discussion in soc.history.what-if) is that often
it happened because the majority party thought it would be in their
immediate political interest to do so, and hung fire (even when it
seemed plausible) if the majority found it inconvenient.
E.g., Wikipedia's article on Nevada says
The separation of the territory from Utah was important to the
federal government because of the Nevada population's political
leanings, while the population itself was keen to be separated
because of animosity (and sometimes violence) between the
non-Mormons who dominated Nevada, and the Mormons who dominated
the rest of the Utah territory.[citation needed] ...
Eight days prior to the presidential election of 1864, Nevada
became the 36th state in the union. Statehood was rushed to the
date of October 31 to help ensure Abraham Lincoln's reelection on
November 8 and post-Civil War Republican dominance in Congress,[8]
as Nevada's mining-based economy tied it to the more
industrialized Union.
Or see West Virginia. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state>
mentions that Maine got statehood (splitting from Massachusetts) in
1820 as part of the Missouri Compromise.
For the other direction, the same article says
Congress is also under no obligation to admit states even in those
areas whose population expresses a desire for statehood. For
instance, the Republic of Texas requested annexation to the United
States in 1836, but fears about the conflict with Mexico that
would result delayed admission for nine years.[citation needed]
The Utah Territory was denied admission to the union as a state
for decades because of discomfort with The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-day Saints' dominance in the territory, its desire to
name the region Deseret due to its ties to Mormonism, and
particularly with the Mormons' then-practice of polygamy.[citation
needed]
SHWIF's discussion mentioned that US Western states tended to be
admitted by Republicans were really interested in creating Republican
Congressmen. A pretext was asserting that the populations would bulk
up with settlement over time; previous states did, but not so much in
these mostly arid states.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
David Goldfarb
>If you lived in or near Westwood MA, you could apply for a job at
>Turbine, creators of Lord of the Rings Online.
When Katie was looking for a job, one of the places she applied was
Raytheon. If she were in that job, we'd be living in the Boston area.
(Katie got her undergrad degree from MIT, so she's been there before.)
Not sure whether I'd like that better than Houston or not.
--
David Goldfarb |"Actually, I just enjoy bursting into flames...
gold...@ocf.berkeley.edu | You should try it sometime...relieves a lot
gold...@csua.berkeley.edu | of stress."
| -- Jen Hill on rec.arts.tv.mst3k
Kip Williams
> In article<8sAIm.2529$%j4....@newsfe18.iad>,
> Kip Williams<k...@rochester.rr.com, mrk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>> I thought it was because their population density was low when they
>>> were admitted into the union. There's a certain minimum total
>>> population a territory has to have before it can be granted
>>> statehood.
>>
>> 60,000, apparently.
>
> Cite, please?
'In 1787 the Congress of the Confederation of the United States passed
the Northwest Ordinance which established what is now Ohio, Indiana,
Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota as Northwest Territory and
established the population required for statehood as 60,000 people. The
ordinance was affirmed again by Congress under the current US
Constitution in 1789.'
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_requirements_for_statehood
They could be wrong, but it appeared to be 60,000.
Kip W
Tim McDaniel
Thank you for that.
<http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Northwest_Ordinance>
But that's the Northwest Ordinance, which regulated territory then
(theoretically) ceded to the United States under the Articles of
Confederation, what would later be all or parts of six states, not all
future states. And
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio#Statehood:_1803.E2.80.93present>
says that there was a formal act that (more or less) admitted Ohio by
act of Congress, and before there were 60,000 inhabitants.
--
Tim McDaniel, tm...@panix.com
Kip Williams
> In article<A8JIm.9893$6c2....@newsfe03.iad>,
Oh well.
Kip W
Karl Johanson
news:cqr5f5tms2qtrcson...@4ax.com...
Come on all you socialists lets sing socialists songs. Because we're all
socialists they don't have to rhyme.
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
?
--
"I want to know what became of the changes
We waited for love to bring.
Were they only the fitful dreams
Of some greater awakening?"
Clyde J. Browne
Dorothy J Heydt
><karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
>>> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:30:42 -0500, Kip Williams <k...@rochester.rr.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>Keith F. Lynch wrote:
>>>>> Dorothy J Heydt<djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you think the western States are so big? Because by that
>>>>>> time the railroad and the telegraph had been invented.
>>>>>
>>>>> I thought it was because their population density was low when they
>>>>> were admitted into the union. There's a certain minimum total
>>>>> population a territory has to have before it can be granted statehood.
>>>>
>>>>60,000, apparently. That made me wonder about Alaska, but apparently
>>>>they even had twice that many people in 1950.
>>>>
>>>>Sixth wealthiest state per capita? Who knew. I'm guessing those
>>>>government giveaways help somewhat.
>>>
>>> That really depends on your definition of giveaway. It seems that, in
>>> Alaska, they believe that those royalties for oil and gas exploitation
>>> on public land belong to the *people* and they give them some of that
>>> money every year.
>>
>>Come on all you socialists lets sing socialists songs. Because we're all
>>socialists they don't have to rhyme.
>
>?
He's probably referencing Tom Lehrer, "The Folksong Army."
http://www.casualhacker.net/tom.lehrer/the_year.html#army
"The tune don't have to be clever,
And it don't matter if you put a coupla extra syllables into a
line.
It sounds more ethnic if it ain't good English,
And it don't even gotta rhyme.
Excuse me, I mean rhyne."
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>David V. Loewe, Jr <dave...@charter.net> wrote:
I was more puzzled about why he brought up socialist songs than which
particular song he was referring to.
--
"Seen through the glow of a building orgasm, a woman seems to
blaze with angelic glory."
Larry Niven - Ringworld
Karl Johanson
Interesting song. But no, I wasn't refering to Lehrer. I was just commenting
on Alaska actually sharing public weath with the public, instead of just
politicians and large corporations. I'd heard the socialist song once, as
sung by a fan at an SF club meeting in the early 80's.
Karl Johanson
David Loewe, Jr.
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"Dorothy J Heydt" <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote
Why shouldn't the landowners get the money? Sounds capitalistic to me.
>I'd heard the socialist song once, as
>sung by a fan at an SF club meeting in the early 80's.
--
"Nursing does not diminish the beauty of a woman's breasts;
it enhances their charm by making them look lived in and
happy"
-Lazarus Long
Karl Johanson
Well said. Nice to meet another person who realizes that capitalism can be a
tool that socialist governments (like Alaska's) can use.
All too often politicians take the wealth from public assets and give it to
themselves and a few select buddies, then cry "socialist" at any who want
the wealth shared with all it's owners, rather than the select few.
Karl Johanson
David V. Loewe, Jr
<karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote
I have some other views that might surprise you. For example, I'm in
favor of requiring union pension funds to be invested, at least in part,
in the public companies where they represent the work force. Workers
owning the means of production and all that.
--
"I thought that you might have some advice to give ...
On how to be... Insensitive."
- Jann Arden
Doug Wickstr�m
Heydt) wrote:
>In article <hcslfp$inb$1...@reader1.panix.com>,
>Tim McDaniel <tm...@panix.com> wrote:
>>In article <KsLEJ...@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djh...@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>Though considering how small the northeastern States are (they were
>>>established when the only form of transportation was feet),
>>
>>The invention of boats in 1795 was a real game-changer. All hail the
>>earlier brave colonials, struggling across the winter ice from
>>Britain.
>
>Heh. I meant transportation from one colony to another, and you
>knew what I meant.
Which was largely by boat until rail travel became common.
>Why do you think the western States are so big? Because by that
>time the railroad and the telegraph had been invented.
Nah. The smaller states are an aberration, even on the east
coast.
Doug Wickstr�m
Well, they're wrong about the Minnesota part. Minnesota was
created partly from the Wisconsin Territory (as was Michigan),
and partly from the Dakota Territory. Half of Minnesota (the
best half, IMHO) was obtained through the Louisana Purchase.
Keith F. Lynch
> Nah. The smaller states are an aberration, even on the east coast.
How small is small? By western standards, all east coast states
are small.
On the other hand "Virginia" originally meant everything between the
Atlantic and Pacific that was between Florida and Newfoundland. It
was very roughly equivalent to what's now the whole US.
David Harmon
Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>Why shouldn't the landowners get the money? Sounds capitalistic to me.
What percentage of Alaskan residents are landowners?
Where oilfields are concerned, what did they typically do to acquire
that ownership?
David V. Loewe, Jr
wrote:
>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 12:47:20 -0600 in rec.arts.sf.fandom, "David Loewe,
>Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote,
>>Why shouldn't the landowners get the money? Sounds capitalistic to me.
>
>What percentage of Alaskan residents are landowners?
All of them. It's *public* land.
>Where oilfields are concerned, what did they typically do to acquire
>that ownership?
They became citizens.
--
"Liberalism is a philosophy of consolation for Western Civilization
as it commits suicide."
- James Burnham