Good grief!
carl...@comcast.net
z
That's the same town that Serotta Cycles is in.
Ryan Cousineau
carl...@comcast.net wrote:
Holy buried lede Batman!
"Walking to the school also is not permitted."
I assume they mean unescorted-by-adult walking, and it STILL seems crazy.
"officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride their
bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents"
Give me strength.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Peter Cole
> In article <7g08c59c752240jbr...@4ax.com>,
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Holy buried lede Batman!
>
> "Walking to the school also is not permitted."
>
> I assume they mean unescorted-by-adult walking, and it STILL seems crazy.
>
> "officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride their
> bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents"
>
> Give me strength.
>
This is the typical approach to solving the conflict with autos -- ban
all other forms of transportation. Sad. It's the same here in MA, my
kids were prohibited from cycling to their elementary school. Of course
after school, no one could stop them from biking to the adjacent
playground (although none did).
SMS
> In article <7g08c59c752240jbr...@4ax.com>,
> carl...@comcast.net wrote:
>
>> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Carl Fogel
>
> Holy buried lede Batman!
>
> "Walking to the school also is not permitted."
>
> I assume they mean unescorted-by-adult walking, and it STILL seems crazy.
>
> "officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride their
> bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents"
>
> Give me strength.
This policy has been in effect for 11 years and only one parent has
challenged it? How can it possibly be legal? The school presumably
provides no bicycle parking but how do they keep students from walking
to school.
Let's pass more laws to make everything safe for everyone.
SMS
> This is the typical approach to solving the conflict with autos -- ban
> all other forms of transportation. Sad. It's the same here in MA, my
> kids were prohibited from cycling to their elementary school. Of course
> after school, no one could stop them from biking to the adjacent
> playground (although none did).
I feel much better about where I live, which I had thought was a very
over-protective town. Kids ride to the playground at the nearby
elementary school, and I think most of the neighborhood kids learned to
ride a bike on the school's blacktop. The school provides bike racks,
though not too many kids bike to school, though probably about half of
the kids walk to school (with distance not necessarily being the
determining factor since I used to see someone that lived about 200'
from the school used to drive their child, while some students that live
1/2 mile away walk).
School traffic is a problem that feeds on itself. Parents see how people
drive around the school and don't want to let their kids walk or ride
bicycles to school so they drive them, which just makes the whole
problem worse. Parents driving their kids to school seem to me to be the
most dangerous drivers around schools. It drives the police crazy all
the complaints about drivers around schools.
At my son's middle school, when it opened five years ago they expected
very few kids to bicycle to school and they were taken by surprise at
the huge numbers of bicyclists. They quickly constructed a second
bicycle parking area at the other side of the campus. It was a pleasant
surprise that a district that won't even spend money providing enough
lockers would spend the money on a bicycle parking area. It was also
nice to hear administrators advise the parents that it was okay to drop
their kids off a couple of blocks away from the school, even when it's
raining, and not get entangled in the horrendous neighborhood traffic jams.
I think more kids would ride to school if they had lighter loads. There
are probably 300 kids in my son's school in band or orchestra and many
have to take their instruments back and forth every day. My son plays
drums and all he needs to carry is his drum sticks--good choice. I've
seen two bikes with specially constructed rear racks that are able to
carry trombones, but I think carrying a tuba or an acoustic double bass
would be more difficult. My daughter rides her bike to high school, but
on days when she needs to take home her acoustic double bass I have to
drive to the school to pick it
Now if we could just get all the students to ride on the right side of
the road, not ride on sidewalks, and fasten their helmet straps, that
would be even better.
(PeteCresswell)
>http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
I go back to the town I grew up every few months and, by
coincidence, drive the exact route that I used to bike/walk/run
(depending...) to school on.
It's not the way it should be... but I would not feel comfortable
having my kids use that route every day.
Same roads. Vastly-different traffic. People drive far, far,
far faster than they did back then and a significant percent of
them are distracted by cell phone use.
Like I said, it shouldn't be that way... but it is...
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Krygowski
> Per carlfo...@comcast.net:
Then the proper solution is to slow the traffic down, and perhaps to
prohibit most of it near schools.
Walking and cycling should be treated as absolute rights, and kids
should be _strongly_ encouraged to transport themselves. This "Oh
well, it's too dangerous" attitude is vaguely obscene.
- Frank Krygowski
Peter Cole
I don't think there's anything vague about it.
Stephen Bauman
Here's some additional information on this. Sorry the links are in
reverse chronological order.
http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/09/14/news/
doc4aada71020507442523775.txt
http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/09/15/news/
doc4aaf06c51388a691765607.txt
http://www.saratogian.com/articles/2009/05/23/news/
doc4a176696ca884152592474.txt
Stephen Bauman
Bill Sornson
> http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
Has made national news since posted. Bypassing Nanny State straight for
Police State.
BS (if only)
Dan O
There's your autonomous local control of schools, baby.
Tom Sherman °_°
When I rode to high school on a bike (Peugeot P-8), I always parked it
at a business a few blocks away so it would not get trashed by other
students.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
Jobst Brandt
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>>> Holy buried lede Batman!
>>> "Walking to the school also is not permitted."
>>> I assume they mean unescorted-by-adult walking, and it STILL seems
>>> crazy.
>>> "officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride
>>> their bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents".
>> This is the typical approach to solving the conflict with autos --
>> ban all other forms of transportation. Sad. It's the same here in
>> MA, my kids were prohibited from cycling to their elementary
>> school. Of course after school, no one could stop them from biking
>> to the adjacent playground (although none did).
> When I rode to high school on a bike (Peugeot P-8), I always parked
> it at a business a few blocks away so it would not get trashed by
> other students.
That's interesting. From that I take it the rude, trash any article
or person on wreck.bike attitude was already in swing then. I recall
riding my bicycle to school from the second grade right through
college, never using a lock, but that was "olden times" where we
earned our own equipment and it had one speed and fat tires... or
later on, an SA three speed.
The times they are a changing as anonymity and dark glasses take over.
Jobst Brandt
Nate Nagel
more like HS kids will just trash anything that looks nice and is
unguarded if they think that they can get away with it. Nothing really
new here. Probably happens in just about any high school above a
certain size (e.g. where there's enough students that there's some
degree of anonymity.)
Heck, if someone doesn't like you, they'd still probably taco your wheel
for you even if your bike is a POS. People are rude sometimes.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Tom Sherman °_°
>
This was the early 1980's when the Peugeot P-8 was the least expensive
road bike (IIRC) sold at Yellow Jersey, but still very expensive for me.
I lived in a rural part of Wisconsin with a significant population of
rednecks who were happy to trash anyone or anything different, such as
the only European bicycle they had ever seen.
Jobst Brandt
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>>>>> Holy buried lede Batman!
> more like HS kids will just trash anything that looks nice and is
> unguarded if they think that they can get away with it. Nothing
> really new here. Probably happens in just about any high school
> above a certain size (e.g. where there's enough students that
> there's some degree of anonymity.)
More like "the times theyare a changing" because as I mentioned, it
was not the norm in my youth and thereafter. It is only recently that
these norms are acepted as NORMS.
> Heck, if someone doesn't like you, they'd still probably taco your wheel
> for you even if your bike is a POS. People are rude sometimes.
Not in earlier times that were much more pleasant and civilized.
Jobst Brandt
Tom Sherman °_°
> Heck, if someone doesn't like you, they'd still probably taco your wheel
> for you even if your bike is a POS. People are rude sometimes.
>
Drunken college students are a menace in some neighborhoods-leave a bike
locked up on a Friday or Saturday night, and you will return to find it
trashed.
Mike Jacoubowsky
news:4ac53fe1$0$1624$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Jobst: I don't know about "olden times" but during the early 70s at San
Carlos High School, we had a separate bike parking area, a walled-in brick
enclosure, for those of us with nicer bikes (the few who commuted then on
clunker-type stuff just chained them to the fence around the car parking
lot). We'd generally spend at least some of our lunch hour (OK, mostly all
of it) there hanging out and making sure nobody was vandalizing our bikes.
Of course, the primary vandalism came from other bike folk pulling pranks.
I'm not positive, but I don't think Al Gore had invented the Internet by
then. This was in the dark period between the anonymity of the Internet and
the Federal Papers.
--Mike Jacoubowsky
Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReaction.com
Redwood City & Los Altos, CA USA
AMuzi
It seems so, doesn't it?
http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/district-299/2009/09/city-room---education--.html
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/sns-ap-eu-britain-bullying-death,0,7199137.story
but then again:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0047885/
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Jobst Brandt
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>>>>> Holy buried lede Batman!
>>>>> "Walking to the school also is not permitted."
>>>>> I assume they mean unescorted-by-adult walking, and it STILL seems
>>>>> crazy.
>>>>> "officials allow elementary and middle school students to ride
>>>>> their bikes to school if they bring in notes from their parents".
>>>> This is the typical approach to solving the conflict with autos --
>>>> ban all other forms of transportation. Sad. It's the same here in
>>>> MA, my kids were prohibited from cycling to their elementary
>>>> school. Of course after school, no one could stop them from biking
>>>> to the adjacent playground (although none did).
>>> When I rode to high school on a bike (Peugeot P-8), I always parked
>>> it at a business a few blocks away so it would not get trashed by
>>> other students.
>> That's interesting. From that I take it the rude, trash any
>> article or person on wreck.bike attitude was already in swing then.
>> I recall riding my bicycle to school from the second grade rightq
>> through college, never using a lock, but that was "olden times"
>> where we earned our own equipment and it had one speed and fat
>> tires... or later on, an SA three speed.
>> The times they are a changing as anonymity and dark glasses take
>> over.
> I don't know about "olden times" but during the early 70s at San
> Carlos High School, we had a separate bike parking area, a walled-in
> brick enclosure, for those of us with nicer bikes (the few who
> commuted then on clunker-type stuff just chained them to the fence
> around the car parking lot). We'd generally spend at least some of
> our lunch hour (OK, mostly all of it) there hanging out and making
> sure nobody was vandalizing our bikes. Of course, the primary
> vandalism came from other bike folk pulling pranks.
I've never locked my bicycle and I graduated from college in 1958, a
time when our belongings were safe. The "trash society" didn't get
rolling until I returned from my tour of duty in Europe and my first
six years as a mechanical engineer in interesting times in which I
rode to work at the SLAC (linear accelerator) without locking my
Cinelli bicycle.
> I'm not positive, but I don't think Al Gore had invented the
> Internet by then. This was in the dark period between the anonymity
> of the Internet and the Federal Papers. Just because you didn't
> experience them doesn't mean these times didn't exist.
Anonymity and public rowdiness have little to do with the internet.
It's lack of character and responsibility. Just because these types
abound on the internet doesn't mean they trash bicycles on their KBD.
Jobst Brandt
Andre Jute
Nah, my recollection corresponds with Jobst's nostalgia for a much
more agreeable time; that style of mindless vandalism you describe is
something new. In my schooldays, there might be fistfights among the
boys -- by arrangement and under the supervision of an umpire; hitting
someone in a rage was considered bad form -- but no one would even
consider vandalizing your property.
Bikes weren't locked in the school sheds, the lockers in the athletics
changerooms mostly didn't have locks, and we didn't lock our house
when we went to the beach house for three months in the summer.
Andre Jute
He of the long memory...
Andre Jute
> I'm not positive, but I don't think Al Gore had invented the Internet by
> then.
Heh-heh.
>This was in the dark period between the anonymity of the Internet and
> the Federal Papers.
Just for the record, the Internet, like the Interstate, is another
thing Americans should thank their armed forces for. Before the
Internet there was Arpanet, and before that there was the computer-
routed military net, and the internet would not now exist if the
military hadn't first allowed some of us in business to use their
instant (by today's standards: "almost instant") communications
network.
Personally, I think of the Eisenhower years as an enlightened and
fruitful period when the sun shone constantly and there were girls,
oh, were there girls...
Andre Jute
Nostalgia rules!
--D-y
> On Oct 1, 11:34 am, "(PeteCresswell)" <x...@y.Invalid> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Per carlfo...@comcast.net:
>
> > >http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=847190
>
> > I go back to the town I grew up every few months and, by
> > coincidence, drive the exact route that I used to bike/walk/run
> > (depending...) to school on.
>
> > It's not the way it should be... but I would not feel comfortable
> > having my kids use that route every day.
>
> > Same roads. Vastly-different traffic. People drive far, far,
> > far faster than they did back then and a significant percent of
> > them are distracted by cell phone use.
>
> > Like I said, it shouldn't be that way... but it is...
> > --
> > PeteCresswell
>
> Then the proper solution is to slow the traffic down, and perhaps to
> prohibit most of it near schools.
Ever hear of "School Zones", Frank?
One near our residence had a resident MC patrolman who was kept busy
giving tickets to people who ignored signs and flashing lights-- and
school busses unloading students <g>.
IOW, "Yoo hoo, you, up in your ivory tower there, how are you going to
"slow the traffic down"?"
And "prohibit" traffic on a very busy neighborhood "arterial"? (Ref.
Exposition Blvd, Austin, Tx) You should have heard the screams when
they re-painted the lane lines, taking curbside parking away *in
service of moving traffic-- motor and non-motorized-- through
intersections while protecting "thru" bike lanes on both sides,
including making turns safer for everyone (IMHO).
>
> Walking and cycling should be treated as absolute rights, and kids
> should be _strongly_ encouraged to transport themselves. This "Oh
> well, it's too dangerous" attitude is vaguely obscene.
How long has it been since you've had a grade schooler or middle
schooler in the house, Frank?
It *is* too dangerous. Let's see-- my dog, on a short leash, hit and
nearly run over twice while I was carrying by infant daughter in a
Snugli (on my chest, IOW). Daughter and me absolutely *challenged* to
"step off that curb and see what happens to you!" repeatedly. Brushed
back in a school crossing zone, with the supposed ROW (ha!), with a
father who had just dropped his own kids off looking me right in the
eye and directing me back up onto the curb-- just a few mentions
there.
I looked briefly at the road mentioned in the article "CF" (is that a
real name?) linked to. It could be a really busy arterial that would
indeed be unsafe for kids to ride on, absent substantial barriers for
protection. Just to say, I haven't seen it for myself and I doubt that
any of the posters here have, either. --D-y
--D-y
> Just for the record, the Internet, like the Interstate, is another
> thing Americans should thank their armed forces for. Before the
> Internet there was Arpanet, and before that there was the computer-
> routed military net, and the internet would not now exist if the
> military hadn't first allowed some of us in business to use their
> instant (by today's standards: "almost instant") communications
> network.
"The military, stronghold of morality?"
> Personally, I think of the Eisenhower years as an enlightened and
> fruitful period when the sun shone constantly and there were girls,
> oh, were there girls...
Well... it could have been a whole lot more "enlightened and fruitful"
if ol' Friendly Grandpa Ike had stood up to Joe McCarthy.
Noting, the drive toward (racial) desegregation esp. in public schools
was a "public relations necessity" in the Cold War (a new role--
pawn-- for the... pawns?)
And, along those lines, opinion has surfaced (meaning, "you can see
this stuff on USA Public Television now, after all these years") that
the USA maybe had little to fear, militarily speaking from the Soviet
Union-- RED SCARE, anyone? (IOW, if they thought they could "win", why
didn't the USSR push the button at some point during the "Cuban Missle
Crisis"?) (7000 words or less, please!)
Well, there was a pretty good drought in the USA in the 50's, maybe
that's what "sunshine" you're remembering, O Ancient One:
<http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_01.html>
(btw, I was living in the USA through that trial by fire. We had
polio, too, if you'll remember-- iron lungs and crippled kids all over
the place!)
I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the freedoms (incl. and
esp. birth control pills) of the 60's.
Too bad about that little proxy war thing in SE Asia, otherwise
*everyone* could have come to the party!
"Screw nostalgia", it's a tool of the oppressors.
Sincerely, D-y
Peter Cole
> I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the freedoms (incl. and
> esp. birth control pills) of the 60's.
> Too bad about that little proxy war thing in SE Asia, otherwise
> *everyone* could have come to the party!
>
> "Screw nostalgia", it's a tool of the oppressors.
> Sincerely, D-y
I have to agree. US society was much stricter back then, and freedom
is a double-edged sword. With less tolerance and more pressure for
conformity, people may be (superficially at least) better behaved, but
it's mostly out of fear of consequences. With increased freedom,
individuals must exercise more self-discipline.
What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
effect of people living in greater isolation. Modern cars with their
electronic, climate controlled cocoons are just one symptom. I believe
we humans need community and when that's displaced in its traditional
"natural" forms (e.g. geographical neighborhood, extended families,
etc.), it's replaced by artificial ones -- consumer fashions,
political ideologies, etc. Compared to the old days, many core
activities: child rearing, work, shopping, etc. have been rendered
"non-social". It's not too far a jump from non-social to anti-social.
Focusing on rude behavior and intolerance is just dwelling on the
symptoms rather than the disease. I'm sure that if the members of this
newsgroup were in face-to-face conversation, not only would the tone
be much more civil, attitudes would be much more tolerant. It's much
harder to project your internal preconceptions/biases on real people.
(PeteCresswell)
>Then the proper solution is to slow the traffic down, and perhaps to
>prohibit most of it near schools.
>
>Walking and cycling should be treated as absolute rights, and kids
>should be _strongly_ encouraged to transport themselves.
I agree with all of the above.
Also, it seems to me like slowing down traffic on local
streets/roads would have another far-reaching benefit: making
"road-ready" electric golf carts a practical means of
transportation.
Long, long ago and far, far away I read a newspaper account of a
lady that was somehow crippled to the extent that she could not
drive a car - but could operate a golf cart. She was a sales
person, going from customer-to-customer all day every day. The
golf cart she used was good for about 35 mph and, by her account,
did everything she needed - all day, every day. Her only
complaint was being bullied by the occasional driver bc she was
not going fast enough.
Like I said, this was a loooong time ago.... so, my conclusion is
that electric vehicles have been practical for all that time
except for the uncontrolled speed of traffic.
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Krygowski
> On Oct 1, 10:54 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Then the proper solution is to slow the traffic down, and perhaps to
> > prohibit most of it near schools.
>
> Ever hear of "School Zones", Frank?
Of course. But it's clear they're currently insufficient in many
places.
> One near our residence had a resident MC patrolman who was kept busy
> giving tickets to people who ignored signs and flashing lights-- and
> school busses unloading students <g>.
Good.
>
> IOW, "Yoo hoo, you, up in your ivory tower there, how are you going to
> "slow the traffic down"?"
I don't understand your need for the juvenile language. But:
How to slow the traffic down? Personally, I'd like to see much of the
traffic prohibited when possible. For example, most of the schools in
this community are not on major thoroughfares - a good idea, in my
opinion. If walkable / bikeable connections existed to adjacent
neighborhoods, and if overprotective parents had to pick up their
darlings a couple blocks away, that would diffuse the traffic density,
so to speak.
If that's currently impractical due to local geography, then serious
traffic calming measures might be employed, to physically restrict the
speeds of cars, and to make it inconvenient to drive near a school,
especially at start & finish times. I'd also like to see a
reinstatement of crossing guards, who used to be much more common.
Finally, there is always the option of strict policing. When it's
strict enough, it works.
> > Walking and cycling should be treated as absolute rights, and kids
> > should be _strongly_ encouraged to transport themselves. This "Oh
> > well, it's too dangerous" attitude is vaguely obscene.
>
> How long has it been since you've had a grade schooler or middle
> schooler in the house, Frank?
> It *is* too dangerous.
<sigh> Last middle schooler was my niece who visited for a week this
summer. She walks to school in a major city. Yes, some of her
classmates have paranoid parents who agree with you, despite a
complete lack of problem incidents. Those paranoids are the ones
subjecting kids like my niece to danger.
Yes, I know they'll whine if measures are taken to fix this problem.
But there are always plenty of privileged people whining. We need to
change this aspect of our culture despite the whining.
- Frank Krygowski
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 8:43�am, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the freedoms (incl. and
>> esp. birth control pills) of the 60's.
>> Too bad about that little proxy war thing in SE Asia, otherwise
>> *everyone* could have come to the party!
>>
>> "Screw nostalgia", it's a tool of the oppressors.
>> Sincerely, D-y
>
>I have to agree. US society was much stricter back then, and freedom
>is a double-edged sword. With less tolerance and more pressure for
>conformity, people may be (superficially at least) better behaved, but
>it's mostly out of fear of consequences. With increased freedom,
>individuals must exercise more self-discipline.
I'm going to agree and disagree. Like the old dead white guy said (unresearched
paraphrase to follow) Men will be governed. Either they will govern themselves
or they will be governed by by others. IMHO, that balance was better handled in
the past. "The 50s" are usually denounced by baby boomers as some grim era of
conformity and rigid social roles. That is because they were children and being
the children of people who governed themselves they were not part of the less
conformist and more liberal aspects of their parent's lives. Let's look at what
was happening in the 50s, and I'll define the 50s as an era rather than a
chonology: Tiki culture, hot rodding, swingers, Beat culture, Jazz, teenyboppers
and Rock n Roll. Not exactly the lives of fearful conformists. Even the
conformists wouldn't live up to modern ideas of conformity.
Bu, bu, but those were countercultural reactions against the mainstream culture.
Of course, and of course every healthy culture will have various
counter-cultural trends and sub-cultures. And of course they will not be
predominant, if the mainstream is sufficiently decent and healthy and the
counter-cultures sufficiently respectful of the cultural milieu within which
they exist.
Dusty in his previous says, "I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the
freedoms (incl. and esp. birth control pills) of the 60's." Here we have the
usual modern thing of defining freedom on the basis of sex. Pretty narrow
thinking ATMO. Especially since Mrs Grundy rarely had any sort of control over
what people actually did.
>What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
>see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
>effect of people living in greater isolation.
Can't disagree a bit. Gotta wonder the consequences of the current trend toward
children who never leave the house except to be driven to one of our horrid
over-sized schools. Or in "better" homes to be fetched between a solid, constant
schedule of structured, supervised activities. At least between the hours of TV
and video games.
>Modern cars with their
>electronic, climate controlled cocoons are just one symptom. I believe
>we humans need community and when that's displaced in its traditional
>"natural" forms (e.g. geographical neighborhood, extended families,
>etc.), it's replaced by artificial ones -- consumer fashions,
>political ideologies, etc. Compared to the old days, many core
>activities: child rearing, work, shopping, etc. have been rendered
>"non-social". It's not too far a jump from non-social to anti-social.
>Focusing on rude behavior and intolerance is just dwelling on the
>symptoms rather than the disease. I'm sure that if the members of this
>newsgroup were in face-to-face conversation, not only would the tone
>be much more civil, attitudes would be much more tolerant. It's much
>harder to project your internal preconceptions/biases on real people.
True, again. There are some pretty glaring examples of how various cultural and
(sadly) political bubbles form that allow one to remain solidly ignorant of the
humanity and decency of the people who disagree with them or live differently.
--
Oh damn. There's that annoying blog. Again. http://dumbbikeblog.blogspot.com
Peter Cole
> Dusty in his previous says, "I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the
> freedoms (incl. and esp. birth control pills) of the 60's." Here we have the
> usual modern thing of defining freedom on the basis of sex. Pretty narrow
> thinking ATMO. Especially since Mrs Grundy rarely had any sort of control over
> what people actually did.
The "sexual revolution" really wasn't so much about sex as feminism.
That was a huge change.
Rock 'n roll rattled a lot of cages in the 50's. Mostly that was about
racism. There was a backlash, then came the Civil Rights movement, the
victories and the inevitable bigger backlash.
The "revolution" of the 60's wasn't about drugs but authoritarianism,
both government and corporate. Again, there were victories and the
inevitable huge backlash.
Progress comes in fits and starts.
--D-y
> > Ever hear of "School Zones", Frank?
>
> Of course. But it's clear they're currently insufficient in many
> places.
>
> > One near our residence had a resident MC patrolman who was kept busy
> > giving tickets to people who ignored signs and flashing lights-- and
> > school busses unloading students <g>.
>
> Good.
OK, I'll explain to you: the "kept busy" part meant that many local
commuters on this residential road, which is a N-S connector to 5 E-W
routes of access to a divided, 6-lane N-S highway, were caught
speeding in a place they well should have known better than to speed
in (, including the signs and flashing yellow lights on the day they
were caught.
People (many) don't leave early enough and they don't care about
anyone else's kids, even if they're in the 'hood to drop their own
kids off.
>
> > IOW, "Yoo hoo, you, up in your ivory tower there, how are you going to
> > "slow the traffic down"?"
>
> I don't understand your need for the juvenile language.
It's a way of describing you. You live in an ivory tower and preach to
others how to live their lives that you haven't shared for many years.
Get it?
> But:
>
> How to slow the traffic down? Personally, I'd like to see much of the
> traffic prohibited when possible. For example, most of the schools in
> this community are not on major thoroughfares - a good idea, in my
> opinion. If walkable / bikeable connections existed to adjacent
> neighborhoods, and if overprotective parents had to pick up their
> darlings a couple blocks away, that would diffuse the traffic density,
> so to speak.
It would relocate the traffic density to a place that might not have
school zones and and sidewalks and driveways, since schools usually
have *some* provision for expected traffic, if only school busses.
> If that's currently impractical due to local geography, then serious
> traffic calming measures might be employed, to physically restrict the
> speeds of cars, and to make it inconvenient to drive near a school,
> especially at start & finish times. I'd also like to see a
> reinstatement of crossing guards, who used to be much more common.
Yeah yeah, more speed bumps? What about all the other hours of the
day? There are a couple of grocery stores on the route I'm talking
about-- and a "business center" with USPS station, gas stations,
restaurants, a drug store, Goodwill, etc. Everyone has to suffer
outside of school dropoff/pickup times?
No thanks for that.
BTW, when I got brushed back by the a-whole I mentioned, I was
standing next to one of the two crossing guards who are AISD employees
and there morning and afternoon, every day.
You've got that Ivory Tower Syndrome bad, Frank.
> Finally, there is always the option of strict policing. When it's
> strict enough, it works.
It doesn't work very well, Mr. IT.
> <sigh>
"sigh" yourself, IT. When we're all done here, be sure to let me know
what I said that bothered you the most, OK? You don't have any rank
here, Frank, and, as I've told you before, I'm not one of your poor
undergrads you can humiliate and "make be quiet". Sigh!
> Last middle schooler was my niece who visited for a week this
> summer. She walks to school in a major city. Yes, some of her
> classmates have paranoid parents who agree with you, despite a
> complete lack of problem incidents. Those paranoids are the ones
> subjecting kids like my niece to danger.
It's the bad drivers who are "subjecting your niece to danger".
> Yes, I know they'll whine if measures are taken to fix this problem.
> But there are always plenty of privileged people whining. We need to
> change this aspect of our culture despite the whining.
And the sighing! (sigh)
Good one, Frank. Once again, I've dared to contradict you and been
painted as evil. Remember, just like when my daughter was going to
grow up like your neighbor, a "social retard" to hear your nasty
description of her, because I made her wear a bike helmet? Just to
say, your prophesy still hasn't come true.
I'll keep you posted, of course.
It's good to see that some things are constant in this imperfect and
always-changing world!
--D-y
--D-y
> I'm going to agree and disagree. Like the old dead white guy said (unresearched
> paraphrase to follow) Men will be governed. Either they will govern themselves
> or they will be governed by by others. IMHO, that balance was better handled in
> the past.
There weren't as many temptations in the past-- or, let's call it
"easy opportunity" with less fear of severe consequences. Frame of
reference: widows (especially) being looked at askance by "society".
And divorcees? Women only got divorced for one reason...
> "The 50s" are usually denounced by baby boomers as some grim era of
> conformity and rigid social roles. That is because they were children and being
> the children of people who governed themselves they were not part of the less
> conformist and more liberal aspects of their parent's lives.
Omigod no, it's because we lived through button-down shirt collars,
greased-back hair, "every man owes service in the peacetime draft",
enforced marriage (very difficult to get a divorce, very negative
social status of divorcees, as mentioned), *a woman's place is in the
home* (don't tell me you forgot about that one? I know a woman
engineer about my age, 60, who was the *only* female in her class and
got tons of grief for it from her brave and manly male counterparts).
> Let's look at what
> was happening in the 50s, and I'll define the 50s as an era rather than a
> chonology: Tiki culture, hot rodding, swingers, Beat culture, Jazz, teenyboppers
> and Rock n Roll. Not exactly the lives of fearful conformists.
I've read a sociologist or two who drew parallels to the flapper
culture of the 20's-- the "swingers" who bobbed their hair, bound
their breasts (oooh, kinky!) drank and smoked (tobacco), danced
lasciviously in publc, then settled down, got married, and raised
families as "mainstream" citizens. Just like the Woodstockers...
>Even the
> conformists wouldn't live up to modern ideas of conformity.
I don't know what that means but acceptance of neocon ideology has its
roots somewhere in the conformists of the 60's and 70's who got
married right out of high school like they were supposed to and raised
a generation of the meanest shits that ever walked the planet.
> Bu, bu, but those were countercultural reactions against the mainstream culture.
> Of course, and of course every healthy culture will have various
> counter-cultural trends and sub-cultures. And of course they will not be
> predominant, if the mainstream is sufficiently decent and healthy and the
> counter-cultures sufficiently respectful of the cultural milieu within which
> they exist.
Apologies, but I guess that means something someplace. If you look at
clothing and hair styles, recreational drug/alcohol use, divorce rate,
born-out-of-wedlock rates for children, I'd say the negative aspects
of the "counter culture" of the 60's has become mainstream and there's
"unhealthy-ness" enough to pass around for everyone.
> Dusty in his previous says, "I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the
> freedoms (incl. and esp. birth control pills) of the 60's." Here we have the
> usual modern thing of defining freedom on the basis of sex. Pretty narrow
> thinking ATMO. Especially since Mrs Grundy rarely had any sort of control over
> what people actually did.
Well, maybe the important "freedoms" were lack of shame for doing
something that comes natural (between consenting, unmarried-except-to-
each-other adults, of course), and the freedom to enjoy sex without
the aspect of a shotgun wedding spoiling the party.
I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect but her main
role in life was to make "sinners" as miserable as possible while they
paid for their sin. Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
good fuck in her life and it's too bad for everyone else <g>.
>
> >What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
> >see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
> >effect of people living in greater isolation.
Plugged into their own electronic entertainment devices, and that's
going to get a lot deeper, and soon.
"Guilty". I love my iPod <g>. Well, better than a boom box in some
ways!
> Can't disagree a bit. Gotta wonder the consequences of the current trend toward
> children who never leave the house except to be driven to one of our horrid
> over-sized schools. Or in "better" homes to be fetched between a solid, constant
> schedule of structured, supervised activities. At least between the hours of TV
> and video games.
Yup, it's hard to get them to read. But, on the other hand, some of
those org. activities are really cool, like my neighborhood swim team.
And we moved to a neighborhood that is relatively safe for the kids to
ride their bikes in, very much unlike the old one, partly for that
reason. PITA for us (grownups), great for them.
I'll agree, completely, that far too much emphasis is place on
extracurriculars as college entrance requirements. But, at least some
of that can be "opportunity"-- our high school has an active photo
club, offers a "communications" course that yields both HS and college
credit, and there's a great summer excursion (I think) from a Civics
class. Too $$$ but WTH, my daughter will beat me to see Greece <g>,
you know what I mean?
>There are some pretty glaring examples of how various cultural and
> (sadly) political bubbles form that allow one to remain solidly ignorant of the
> humanity and decency of the people who disagree with them or live differently.
Catch that, Frank? No, really!
--D-y
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 2, 1:14�pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
I'm with Chesterton: "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the
superlative."
Civil Rights movement, unalloyed good thing. I am very foggy on what you
consider to be the big backlash.
Ron
AMuzi
> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
-snippy snip-
> I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect
-snip-
> Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
=snip-
I'm staying out of this one but who the hell is Mrs Gundy?
A web search didn't help.
carl...@comcast.net
>--D-y wrote:
>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>-snippy snip-
>
>> I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect
>-snip-
>> Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
>=snip-
>
>I'm staying out of this one but who the hell is Mrs Gundy?
>A web search didn't help.
Dea Andew,
Try Mrs. Grundy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy
Chees,
Cal Fogel
Michael Press
RonSonic <rons...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> Civil Rights movement, unalloyed good thing. I am very foggy on what you
> consider to be the big backlash.
The backlash is the expectation by some
that each of us owes and is owed civil rights.
--
Michael Press
Michael Press
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> --D-y wrote:
> > RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> -snippy snip-
>
> > I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect
> -snip-
> > Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
> =snip-
>
> I'm staying out of this one but who the hell is Mrs Gundy?
> A web search didn't help.
Misspelled Mrs. Grundy.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy>
--
Michael Press
Andre Jute
> On Oct 1, 9:03 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Just for the record, the Internet, like the Interstate, is another
> > thing Americans should thank their armed forces for. Before the
> > Internet there was Arpanet, and before that there was the computer-
> > routed military net, and the internet would not now exist if the
> > military hadn't first allowed some of us in business to use their
> > instant (by today's standards: "almost instant") communications
> > network.
>
> "The military, stronghold of morality?"
What's wrong with being a patriot and serving your country? There was
a time when I was in and out of the Pentagon a lot, and I don't
remember ever meeting anyone either vicious or stupid. You can't say
the same for RBT, not by a mile you can't.
> > Personally, I think of the Eisenhower years as an enlightened and
> > fruitful period when the sun shone constantly and there were girls,
> > oh, were there girls...
>
> Well... it could have been a whole lot more "enlightened and fruitful"
> if ol' Friendly Grandpa Ike had stood up to Joe McCarthy.
He did, very cleverly. He had the concept spread that McCarthy was
disgracing the most exclusive men's club in the world, the United
States Senate. You'd know that if you read some history, rather than
merely pontificating about your political prejudices.
You do understand Eisenhower's relationship to the "military-
industrial complex", don't you?
> Noting, the drive toward (racial) desegregation esp. in public schools
> was a "public relations necessity" in the Cold War (a new role--
> pawn-- for the... pawns?)
> And, along those lines, opinion has surfaced (meaning, "you can see
> this stuff on USA Public Television now, after all these years") that
> the USA maybe had little to fear, militarily speaking from the Soviet
> Union-- RED SCARE, anyone?
Eisenhower wasn't responsible for the Red Scare. That started under
Truman when an excitable US general in command of the American sector
of Berlin heard the sound of tanks rolling, or thought his (German)
intelligence advisors did, and the Senate panicked. Throughout,
Eisenhower knew and said that the Russians didn't have the means to
start a war, never mind finish it. The 1956 Berlin Tunnel project of
the CIA proved conclusively, with live tape of clatter on an important
military road above the tunnel, that the Russian Army still very
largely depended on horse-drawn transport. Eisenhower must have been
happy to know that much, because as chief American war planner in the
couple of years before America entered the war, one of the failures of
intelligence he condemned most bitterly was the inability of General
Augustus Strong's bureau to tell him how the Russians intended to move
their armies...
>(IOW, if they thought they could "win", why
> didn't the USSR push the button at some point during the "Cuban Missle
> Crisis"?) (7000 words or less, please!)
It appears to have escaped your notice that the Cuban Missile Crisis
happened after Eisenhower left office. It further appears to have
escaped your notice that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a gamble by
Kruschev simply because Kennedy, by comparison to Eisenhower, appeared
weak. Inexplicably you don't even appear to know that Nixon,
Eisenhower's vice-president and at the time the laading American
authority (with George Kennan) on the Soviet mentality and capability,
clearly and repeatedly told Kennedy that the Soviets had neither the
means nor the balls to see it through.
> Well, there was a pretty good drought in the USA in the 50's, maybe
> that's what "sunshine" you're remembering, O Ancient One:
> <http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_01.html>
Yada, yada, yada. You give a farmer a million bucks and he complains
it isn't two million. I spent a summer in the States in the 1950s and
I remember no drought, merely that Seattle was miserable and cold and
wet, worse than the winter in Cape Town I thought I had escaped.
> (btw, I was living in the USA through that trial by fire. We had
> polio, too, if you'll remember-- iron lungs and crippled kids all over
> the place!)
I grew up in South Africa, where polio shots were compulsory. There
was still polio among the children. I remember at least three cases,
one of them a girl who was a close friend.
> I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the freedoms (incl. and
> esp. birth control pills) of the 60's.
> Too bad about that little proxy war thing in SE Asia, otherwise
> *everyone* could have come to the party!
Eisenhower wasn't the one who bought a slightly used Southeast Asian
war from French hucksters, that was Kennedy. Eisenhower wasn't stupid
enough to be taken in by the French; the excitable Kennedy was.
You really want to get a grip on your own history, Dusto. It is
embarrassing for me, a foreigner, to have to keep correcting you, and
the rest of the shower of RBT's self-styled "liberals" (if you lot are
liberal, I wonder what I risked my life for when I was young).
For instance, it is the efflorescence of wealth in the Eisenhower
years that paid for Johnson's Great Society, which did more for black
emancipation than any number of civil rights marches. Money in the
pocket and food in the belly did more for blacks than any number of
speeches by King and Kennedy. That's what makes Johnson the achiever
fundamentally a greater president than Kennedy the talker.
> "Screw nostalgia", it's a tool of the oppressors.
Screw Proudhon too, and the horse he rode in on.
> Sincerely, D-y
Always here if you want me. I haven't oppressed anyone today but if
you could point towards a deserving cager, I'd be happy to oblige.
Andre Jute
Relentless rigour -- Gaius Germanicus Caesar
Andre Jute
> On Oct 2, 8:43 am, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the freedoms (incl. and
> > esp. birth control pills) of the 60's.
> > Too bad about that little proxy war thing in SE Asia, otherwise
> > *everyone* could have come to the party!
>
> > "Screw nostalgia", it's a tool of the oppressors.
> > Sincerely, D-y
>
> I have to agree. US society was much stricter back then, and freedom
> is a double-edged sword. With less tolerance and more pressure for
> conformity, people may be (superficially at least) better behaved, but
> it's mostly out of fear of consequences. With increased freedom,
> individuals must exercise more self-discipline.
>
> What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
> see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
> effect of people living in greater isolation.
The two are interlinked. When 'liberals' destroyed the concept of
family which underpinned much of that calm 1950s mainstream order,
they also destroyed the sense of community that the verballed so much
but did nothing even to preserve, never mind enhance.
There is something else here that it isn't PC to say, but that needs
to be mentioned. The assumption that those shared values had Christian
roots was a very important default position, so even those outside the
mainstream could to a very large extent count on everyone else
behaving rationally and predictably. To cite only one common example,
today's excessive, explosive violence often for zero provocation is
simply irrational. Only a few decades ago, in the light of shared
Christian non-violent assumptions, we would also have called it by its
true name, evil.
Andre Jute
“There is always an easy solution to every human problem — neat,
plausible and wrong.” -- H. L. Mencken
Andre Jute
been right at least twice in the last fortnight, including at lest
partially in the posts for which you condemn him. I think you should
encourage Franki to try harder by positive reinforcement, by saying
something nice about how much improved his logic is. Of course Krygo
has a long way to go, but the road to Damascus is just like the road
to anywhere else, it starts with a single step.
Andre Jute
Never more brutal than he has to be -- Nelson Mandela
Bill Sornson
> --D-y wrote:
>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> -snippy snip-
>
>> I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect -snip-
>> Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
> =snip-
>
> I'm staying out of this one but who the hell is Mrs Gundy?
> A web search didn't help.
It's MISS Gundy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Grundy
Bill "for good reason" S.
(/Mrs. Grundy/ whole other story...)
--D-y
> What's wrong with being a patriot and serving your country?
Um, nothing, especially if the Power goes before Congress and gets
them to declare war, as opposed to a Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, for
instance.
> There was
> a time when I was in and out of the Pentagon a lot, and I don't
> remember ever meeting anyone either vicious or stupid. You can't say
> the same for RBT, not by a mile you can't.
Nor for the local supermarket, let alone the Pentagon.
> He did, very cleverly. He had the concept spread that McCarthy was
> disgracing the most exclusive men's club in the world, the United
> States Senate. You'd know that if you read some history, rather than
> merely pontificating about your political prejudices.
"Stood up to" meaning denouncing him openly. "Spreading concept" is
more like sneaky backstabbing.
I realize Ike would have lost status but the point is...
> You do understand Eisenhower's relationship to the "military-
> industrial complex", don't you?
I'm sure you have an opinion.
Even though he made his famous "beware" speech, he was part of the
MIC.
For instance, pushing the construction of the interstate highway
network-- after perhaps personally being *very* impressed by the
Autobahn?
Sorta like Kennedy's "Gosh everyone, let's go to the moon! (and build
rockets suitable to deliver ICBMs).
> Eisenhower wasn't responsible for the Red Scare.
Oh my God.
> That started under
> Truman when an excitable US general in command of the American sector
> of Berlin heard the sound of tanks rolling, or thought his (German)
> intelligence advisors did, and the Senate panicked. Throughout,
> Eisenhower knew and said that the Russians didn't have the means to
> start a war, never mind finish it. The 1956 Berlin Tunnel project of
> the CIA proved conclusively, with live tape of clatter on an important
> military road above the tunnel, that the Russian Army still very
> largely depended on horse-drawn transport. Eisenhower must have been
> happy to know that much, because as chief American war planner in the
> couple of years before America entered the war, one of the failures of
> intelligence he condemned most bitterly was the inability of General
> Augustus Strong's bureau to tell him how the Russians intended to move
> their armies...
I'll yield to your booksmanship on this point while noting that the
Russians got to Berlin in pretty good shape, all things considered, at
the end of WWII. Oh yeah, and in spite of the image held by many of
the invincible, mechanized German Blitzkrieg, the Nazis used horses,
too, lots of them.
> It appears to have escaped your notice that the Cuban Missile Crisis
> happened after Eisenhower left office. It further appears to have
> escaped your notice that the Cuban Missile Crisis was a gamble by
> Kruschev simply because Kennedy, by comparison to Eisenhower, appeared
> weak. Inexplicably you don't even appear to know that Nixon,
> Eisenhower's vice-president and at the time the laading American
> authority (with George Kennan) on the Soviet mentality and capability,
> clearly and repeatedly told Kennedy that the Soviets had neither the
> means nor the balls to see it through.
If Nixon leaned into your ear trying to sell you a used car...
Too bad he didn't bring the same kind of expertise to bear in SE Asia.
But, that was all about not being the first President to lose a war...
> > Well, there was a pretty good drought in the USA in the 50's, maybe
> > that's what "sunshine" you're remembering, O Ancient One:
> > <http://www.livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe50s/water_01.html>
>
> Yada, yada, yada. You give a farmer a million bucks and he complains
> it isn't two million. I spent a summer in the States in the 1950s and
> I remember no drought, merely that Seattle was miserable and cold and
> wet, worse than the winter in Cape Town I thought I had escaped.
Yada, published rainfall stats, yada, rainfall stats. Yada! Drought!
You were trying to escape a wet winter and wen to Seattle??? Very poor
research pre that sojourn, Andre.
> I grew up in South Africa, where polio shots were compulsory. There
> was still polio among the children. I remember at least three cases,
> one of them a girl who was a close friend.
I didn't have any friends afflicted before or after we all went to the
Armory (see! The moral repository doing good, again!) in 1955 as a
first-round, soon-as-it-became-available "polio shot". But, there were
at least a few kids in braces with crutches in school, and we were
told of at least one little girl who was confined to an iron lung.
Dang, shall I go look up some more stats to show that Salk was on the
right track here? You don't seem to believe in stats much, see above.
IMS, the vaccine was improved, incl. oral application. Your point?
Salk was a Communist?
> Eisenhower wasn't the one who bought a slightly used Southeast Asian
> war from French hucksters, that was Kennedy. Eisenhower wasn't stupid
> enough to be taken in by the French; the excitable Kennedy was.
I could find a more exact source, but Wiki just real quick mentions
vaguely that USA "military advisors" started arriving in Vietnam in
1950.
And (quoting, more Wiki):PRC military advisors began assisting the
Viet Minh in July 1950.[31] PRC weapons, expertise, and laborers
transformed the Viet Minh from a guerrilla force into a regular army.
[32] In September, the U.S. created a Military Assistance and Advisory
Group (MAAG) to screen French requests for aid, advise on strategy,
and train Vietnamese soldiers.[33] By 1954, the U.S. had supplied
300,000 small arms and spent US$1 billion in support of the French
military effort and was shouldering 80 percent of the cost of the war.
[34]
Sounds like the French got something of an "inheritance" from Uncle
Sugar to me.
> You really want to get a grip on your own history, Dusto. It is
> embarrassing for me, a foreigner, to have to keep correcting you, and
> the rest of the shower of RBT's self-styled "liberals" (if you lot are
> liberal, I wonder what I risked my life for when I was young).
When I feel like you've actually "corrected" me, I'll let you and the
rest of the self-styled "liberals" (according to you; I never called
myself a "liberal", etc.) know.
Does not agreeing with you make me a "liberal"?
I don't know the details of "what you risked your life for" but that's
your problem, buddy.
I got lucky and was not forced to risk my life, health, sanity for an
illegal (immoral, stupid, unwinnable) "military action".
> For instance, it is the efflorescence of wealth in the Eisenhower
> years that paid for Johnson's Great Society, which did more for black
> emancipation than any number of civil rights marches. Money in the
> pocket and food in the belly did more for blacks than any number of
> speeches by King and Kennedy. That's what makes Johnson the achiever
> fundamentally a greater president than Kennedy the talker.
(Wiki):
There were three recessions during Eisenhower's administration — July
1953 through May 1954, August 1957 through April 1958, and April 1960
through February 1961. Real GDP growth averaged just 2.5% over those
eight years. Eisenhower allowed the recessions to occur, to wring out
the inflation of wartime. (end)
('nother Wiki quote):
President John F. Kennedy passed the largest tax cut in history upon
entering office in 1961. $200 billion in war bonds matured, and the
G.I. Bill financed a well-educated work force. The middle class
swelled, as did GDP and productivity. The U.S. underwent a kind of
golden age of economic growth. This growth was distributed fairly
evenly across the economic classes, which some attribute to the
strength of labor unions in this period—labor union membership peaked
historically in the U.S. during the 1950s, in the midst of this
massive economic growth. President Lyndon B. Johnson (1963–69) dreamed
of creating a "Great Society", and began many new social programs to
that end, such as Medicaid and Medicare. (end)
Too bad Johnson decided, in order to serve his masters, to waste the
wealth of the nation (including the lives of 55,000 USA servicemen and
women) on an un-winnable war.
> Screw Proudhon too, and the horse he rode in on.
Oh my goodness, now I'm an anarchist! Wow. An anarchist who is saying
the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was an end-run around the Constitution,
meant to serve a secret agenda that used "fighting Communism" as a
pretext.
In conclusion, I read, during ramblings IRT this thread, that the
expression "Domino Effect", used in reference to SE Asia, first saw
light of day during Eisenhower's watch. Just more Red Scare, Andre?
Hoping I've laid it on thick enough to make you happy,
--D-y
Andre Jute
somebody instead wants to witter on about the Domino Theory? Hell,
that's duller than Derrida. Will y'all be happier if I wrote
"Personally, I think of the 1950's as an enlightened and
fruitful period when the sun shone constantly and there were girls,
PS I was also going to say something about the 60s but, on
consideration of Sorni jumping up and down and shouting that this is a
family conference, he decided to abstain.
--D-y
wrote:
> --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> considered Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:52:57 -0700
> (PDT) the perfect time to write:
>
> >On Oct 2, 11:59 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Finally, there is always the option of strict policing. When it's
> >> strict enough, it works.
>
> >It doesn't work very well, Mr. IT.
>
>
> Strict policing would have meant that your brushback AH would have
> been hauled off on charges of threatening behaviour and child
> endangerment in addition to the traffic violations, and sentenced
> heavily enough to ensure it didn't happen again.
Strict policing meaning a cop standing on the corner, and I'll agree
there that it "wouldn't have happened in the first place".
There was a patrol car parked nearby (doing intimidation duty at the
second crosswalk serving this school, a scant 75 yards away.
I went and told the officer what happened, and he moved over to the
"brushback" location, choosing a spot where he was not immediately
obvious to vehicular traffic. I prayed, to no avail, for a second perp
to get popped.
Um, get real about driver aggression. They do it all the time and get
away with it; "endangerment of a child"? I think I'd have had to stand
my ground (with child in tow), and both of us to get hit to get the
asshole a slap on the wrist.
Back to my question: what do you think can be done, really? Aside from
humps, of course... hey, maybe collapsible humps?
How about squads of US Marines, cleared to fire on offenders?
--D-y
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> How long has it been since you've had a grade schooler or middle
> schooler in the house, Frank?
> It *is* too dangerous. Let's see-- my dog, on a short leash, hit and
> nearly run over twice while I was carrying by infant daughter in a
> Snugli (on my chest, IOW). Daughter and me absolutely *challenged* to
> "step off that curb and see what happens to you!" repeatedly. Brushed
> back in a school crossing zone, with the supposed ROW (ha!), with a
> father who had just dropped his own kids off looking me right in the
> eye and directing me back up onto the curb-- just a few mentions
I used to ride a Razor scooter around campus and when drivers refused to
stop for people in crosswalks, I would hold it (folded) out in front of
me at windshield level. Worked every time to get traffic to stop. :)
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
--D-y
> Why is it that every time I want to talk about wine, women and song,
> somebody instead wants to witter on about the Domino Theory? Hell,
> that's duller than Derrida. Will y'all be happier if I wrote
> "Personally, I think of the 1950's as an enlightened and
> fruitful period when the sun shone constantly and there were girls,
> oh, were there girls..." -- Andre Jute
Speaking personally: girls in the 50's, women in the 60's.
Coincidental with birth date.
No great concern with dominoes that I can remember.
--D-y
RonSonic
I don't consider this a particularly healthy culture for many of the reasons you
cite.
>> Dusty in his previous says, "I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the
>> freedoms (incl. and esp. birth control pills) of the 60's." Here we have the
>> usual modern thing of defining freedom on the basis of sex. Pretty narrow
>> thinking ATMO. Especially since Mrs Grundy rarely had any sort of control over
>> what people actually did.
>
>Well, maybe the important "freedoms" were lack of shame for doing
>something that comes natural (between consenting, unmarried-except-to-
>each-other adults, of course), and the freedom to enjoy sex without
>the aspect of a shotgun wedding spoiling the party.
>
>I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect but her main
>role in life was to make "sinners" as miserable as possible while they
>paid for their sin. Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
>good fuck in her life and it's too bad for everyone else <g>.
See, this may be just me, but I never really cared what she thought. I always
considered that sort of a test. If you aren't grown up enough to simply not give
a damn about her opinion then you weren't ready for whatever it was.
>> >What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
>> >see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
>> >effect of people living in greater isolation.
>
>Plugged into their own electronic entertainment devices, and that's
>going to get a lot deeper, and soon.
>"Guilty". I love my iPod <g>. Well, better than a boom box in some
>ways!
>
>> Can't disagree a bit. Gotta wonder the consequences of the current trend toward
>> children who never leave the house except to be driven to one of our horrid
>> over-sized schools. Or in "better" homes to be fetched between a solid, constant
>> schedule of structured, supervised activities. At least between the hours of TV
>> and video games.
>
>Yup, it's hard to get them to read. But, on the other hand, some of
>those org. activities are really cool, like my neighborhood swim team.
>And we moved to a neighborhood that is relatively safe for the kids to
>ride their bikes in, very much unlike the old one, partly for that
>reason. PITA for us (grownups), great for them.
It's just a question of proportion. A solid schedule is not child friendly.
>I'll agree, completely, that far too much emphasis is place on
>extracurriculars as college entrance requirements. But, at least some
>of that can be "opportunity"-- our high school has an active photo
>club, offers a "communications" course that yields both HS and college
>credit, and there's a great summer excursion (I think) from a Civics
>class. Too $$$ but WTH, my daughter will beat me to see Greece <g>,
>you know what I mean?
>
>>There are some pretty glaring examples of how various cultural and
>> (sadly) political bubbles form that allow one to remain solidly ignorant of the
>> humanity and decency of the people who disagree with them or live differently.
>
>Catch that, Frank? No, really!
RonSonic
>--D-y wrote:
>> RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>-snippy snip-
>
>> I think Mrs. Gundy might have had some "deterrent" effect
>-snip-
>> Mrs. Gundy, needless to say, missed at least one
>=snip-
>
>I'm staying out of this one but who the hell is Mrs Gundy?
>A web search didn't help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mrs_Grundy
RonSonic
Sure as hell not the widow Grundy!
(PeteCresswell)
>Back to my question: what do you think can be done, really? Aside from
>humps, of course... hey, maybe collapsible humps?
One thing that seems to slow traffic down is making the roadway
narrower.
I've seen pix of some European neighborhoods where they wanted
the streets usable by people not driving cars and they had very
large planters strategically located. According the article
they were in, it works.
In the school location, maybe that cop car could have parked so
as to create a sort of squeeze point.... in hopes that something
just wide enough for a school bus to get through would be narrow
enough to slow car drivers down.
--
PeteCresswell
Frank Krygowski
> On Oct 2, 11:59 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I don't understand your need for the juvenile language.
>
Oh? Most people would describe this as a Cape Cod.
> and preach to
> others how to live their lives that you haven't shared for many years.
> Get it?
There's nothing worth "getting." You're doing as much preaching as
anybody here, but with language and attitude that are childish and
snotty.
- Frank Krygowski
Frank Krygowski
Regarding strict enforcement: The state DOT rammed an excessively
wide road through this little village in the 1970s. Motorists looked
at the five lanes of concrete and treated it like a freeway. So in
the late '70s and early '80s the mayor demanded strict enforcement of
the 25 mph speed limit.
So the cops used radar, and the village got a reputation as a speed
trap. Most residents didn't mind at all. It was their kids who had
to cross that road.
Later mayors cut back on the enforcement, and the state DOT foolishly
raised the speed limit to 35 on part of that stretch. Cops are still
there pretty frequently, but a newspaper investigation showed that
contrary to the reputation, they are not ticketing until at least 40
mph.
But the reputation remains. I estimate a third of the motorists crank
it down to 25 mph when they see a cop, despite the 35 mph signs and
the passage of nearly 20 years.
Strict enforcement does have an effect - not perfect, but strong; and
the effect can be lasting.
- Frank Krygowski
Dan O
The longstanding pervasive automobile culture has made our country
exceedingly hostile for bicyclists and pedestrians. Not sure what can
be done about it now; but the situation is very, very bad. (Not
telling you guys anything you don't already know, of course.)
--D-y
> On Oct 2, 1:52 pm, --D-y <dustoyev...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 11:59 am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I don't understand your need for the juvenile language.
>
> > It's a way of describing you. You live in an ivory tower...
>
> Oh? Most people would describe this as a Cape Cod.
Which most people would describe as an ivory tower.
> There's nothing worth "getting." You're doing as much preaching as
> anybody here, but with language and attitude that are childish and
> snotty.
Sez you.
"What was it I said that bothered you the most, Frank?"
Just for "what it's worth", you're preaching, I'm describing.
--D-y
Tim McNamara
<6ec15f44-ba3e-4303...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
Dan O <danov...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The longstanding pervasive automobile culture has made our country
> exceedingly hostile for bicyclists and pedestrians.
It's also hostile for drivers. The car culture is a lose-lose-lose
situation. But we are so slavishly devoted to it at a personal,
business and policy level that it gives the illusion of being
unchangeable.
> Not sure what can be done about it now; but the situation is very,
> very bad.
$10 a gallon gasoline would fix it fast. Heck, around here $4 a gallon
nearly doubled the number of bike commuters and packed the buses and
light rail lines.
--D-y
And so much for putting the cops on the hot seat?
> But the reputation remains. I estimate a third of the motorists crank
> it down to 25 mph when they see a cop, despite the 35 mph signs and
> the passage of nearly 20 years.
>
> Strict enforcement does have an effect - not perfect, but strong; and
> the effect can be lasting.
Can be, no doubt there.
But, at the place at the school crossing I described, this hasn't
happened.
They could have used two or three MC cops (and I did see teams of at
least two, at least a few times).
It's not hard to see why the cop/s are gone-- "citizen complaints".
Like I said, this (Exposition street/ave/blvd) is something of an
arterial, and people just don't want to leave early enough.
Speeding, passing on the right (around a turning car) in or very near
a marked, lighted school crossing should be a "two strikes" offense.
If so, and the "trap" set up every single day, twice a day and maybe
at noon-- no lights, no reduced speed, but they'd still catch people
doing 10 or 15 over the posted 30! with kids present, of course-- then
there would be some effect.
One aspect of which would be increased crazy driving through
neighborhoods. We lived in one such; our street didn't even go
straight through from one "artery" to another, and I quickly learned
to back to the end of the driveway and check again for maniacs before
entering the ROW.
This is a moral problem (NSS!).
--D-y
Dan O
> In article
> <6ec15f44-ba3e-4303-95c4-cdc8a7148...@m7g2000prd.googlegroups.com>,
> Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > The longstanding pervasive automobile culture has made our country
> > exceedingly hostile for bicyclists and pedestrians.
>
> It's also hostile for drivers.
Well, often inconvenient for them, anyway. I don't think drivers face
the kind of hostility I was talking about.
> The car culture is a lose-lose-lose
> situation. But we are so slavishly devoted to it at a personal,
> business and policy level that it gives the illusion of being
> unchangeable.
>
> > Not sure what can be done about it now; but the situation is very,
> > very bad.
>
> $10 a gallon gasoline would fix it fast. Heck, around here $4 a gallon
> nearly doubled the number of bike commuters and packed the buses and
> light rail lines.
This is the very measure that I have long espoused. It would get a
lot of alternatives going. I might take it a step further to
outrightly ban the use of gasoline for private transport in many
places.
Nate Nagel
No, it would be unAmerican to ban outright things that you personally
don't like.
However, I've long said that higher fuel taxes are the ONLY way that we
will ever get the average person to take conservation seriously, but
it's a politically unpopular move. Sure, you would have the right to
drive an 8 MPG beast by yourself to work and back every day, and then
run to the store after you get home instead of stopping on the way, but
if it actually starts to hurt to do so...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
--D-y
We could all live in the dark once they "outrightly" ban the use of
electricity (generated by fossile fuel combustion!) for lighting, too.
Eminently sustainable! --D-y
Peter Cole
> On Fri, 2 Oct 2009 10:47:59 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 2, 1:14 pm, RonSonic <ronso...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >> Dusty in his previous says, "I remember the 50's as the Dark Ages before the
> >> freedoms (incl. and esp. birth control pills) of the 60's." Here we have the
> >> usual modern thing of defining freedom on the basis of sex. Pretty narrow
> >> thinking ATMO. Especially since Mrs Grundy rarely had any sort of control over
> >> what people actually did.
>
> >That was a huge change.
>
> >Rock 'n roll rattled a lot of cages in the 50's. Mostly that was about
> >racism. There was a backlash, then came the Civil Rights movement, the
> >victories and the inevitable bigger backlash.
>
> >The "revolution" of the 60's wasn't about drugs but authoritarianism,
> >both government and corporate. Again, there were victories and the
> >inevitable huge backlash.
>
> >Progress comes in fits and starts.
>
> I'm with Chesterton: "Progress is a comparative of which we have not settled the
> superlative."
>
> Civil Rights movement, unalloyed good thing. I am very foggy on what you
> consider to be the big backlash.
>
Peter Cole
> On Oct 2, 2:58 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
> > see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
> > effect of people living in greater isolation.
>
> The two are interlinked. When 'liberals' destroyed the concept of
> family [..]
OK, you're going to have to do a better job of establishing your
premise.
> Only a few decades ago, in the light of shared
> Christian non-violent assumptions, we would also have called it by its
> true name, evil.
And you'll have to provide some evidence for Christian non-violence.
Peter Cole
The backlash to the Civil Rights movement brought the demise of the
Dixie-crat coalition and ushered in 3 decades of conservatism.
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399921,00.html
Sample:
"Space doesn't permit a complete list of the Gipper's signals to angry
white folks that Republicans prefer to ignore, so two incidents in
which Lott was deeply involved will have to suffice. As a young
congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his
first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three
civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases
of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for
"states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances
clearly understood by white Southern voters."
In the recent news: 1) "You lie!" 2) Right wing glee over Obama's
"failure" in Copenhagen 3) DeMint's "delegation" to Honduras.
These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
just happens to be black.
AMuzi
-snip-
> These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
> just happens to be black.
That all ya got?
Sheesh.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Dan O
How about in many places - like inside the library, or your MUP?
Would that be un-American? How about nuclear bombs? Electro-shock
collars for crying children? Etc., etc.
>
> However, I've long said that higher fuel taxes are the ONLY way that we
> will ever get the average person to take conservation seriously, but
> it's a politically unpopular move. Sure, you would have the right to
> drive an 8 MPG beast by yourself to work and back every day, and then
> run to the store after you get home instead of stopping on the way, but
> if it actually starts to hurt to do so...
>
I'll bet those electro-shock collars hurt.
Nate Nagel
What the hell are you on about?
Andre Jute
> On Oct 2, 5:10 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 2, 2:58 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > What has been lost since those days is a sense of community. I don't
> > > see that as a consequence of a more liberal society but rather the
> > > effect of people living in greater isolation.
>
> > The two are interlinked. When 'liberals' destroyed the concept of
> > family [..]
>
> OK, you're going to have to do a better job of establishing your
> premise.
I see. If I agree with you, I can say what I like, but if you don't
like me, I have to provide proof when I say the sun shines. You're
wanking, Colesy. Everyone knows Johnson's Great Society entrenched
single parent families and hugely promoted the decline of the family.
That is quite beyond argument or the necessity of further proof,
except to idiot engineers who fancy themselves polemicists.
> > Only a few decades ago, in the light of shared
> > Christian non-violent assumptions, we would also have called it by its
> > true name, evil.
>
> And you'll have to provide some evidence for Christian non-violence.
You're making my case for me, Colesy. It is part of the inhumanity and
arrogance of the left to refuse to see any good in anyone except
themselves. It is that same reckless, arrogant inhumanity which turns
them into genocides, as I demonstrated on this conference already for
the banning of DDT (Rachel Carson, the saint of the environmentalists,
is the most effective genocidal maniac the world has ever, and
everyone who ever marched to ban DDT, or publicly approved of the ban,
is complicit). There will a similar murderous outcome to the entire
'global warming' mess, which is just another excuse for the reckless,
inhumane social engineers you love so much to control all our lives --
and, not so incidentally, keep their nice green gated communities
entirely (dare I say it?) white, with just enough blacks (middle-
class, of course) to escape accusations of racism. They have already
wasted enough money to bring the entire world out of hunger and
poverty, and to cut infant deaths drastically, and to give everyone a
primary education and clean water. So much for the "good intentions"
of your lot.
By contrast the intended and unintended effects of Christianity can be
seen all around you, in fact are the only reason you can shoot off
your fat mouth without getting some thought policeman's boot in it.
Without Christianity we might still be living in a society that
condones slavery. That is overwhelming proof already; I'm surprised
that you don't know it, Colesy. Or is it because the Republicans
emancipated the blacks that you now deny the role of Christianity,
because the Democrats are the party of the slave-owners, -drivers and
whippers-in?
Andre Jute
Master essayist -- you never know where I'll end up. Just like
randonneuring.
Andre Jute
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
> -snip-
>
> > These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
> > just happens to be black.
>
> That all ya got?
> Sheesh.
Colesy is hypersensitive to slights to the most powerful man in the
world because he happens to be milk chocolate coloured! (Hey, Colesy,
if George W Bush was a moron as so many of your kind claimed,
shouldn't you have complained about the insults to him, even if only
to avoid the stench of hypocrisy?)
Such sensitivity for one individual (even if nominally black) sits
oddly with Peter's observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals,
a pretty common disease of pinkos, that they bleed for humanity but
are totally indifferent to the suffering and death of individuals.
(The case of the banning of DDT killing about 220 million of the
poorest and most helpless people on earth is well established as a
gross example of the arrogant know-betters imposing their will
regardless of foreseeable genocidal consequences.)
Andre Jute
Seeing the trees in the woods is a skill of polity as well as forestry
Peter Cole
> I see. If I agree with you, I can say what I like, but if you don't
> like me, I have to provide proof when I say the sun shines. You're
> wanking, Colesy. Everyone knows Johnson's Great Society entrenched
> single parent families and hugely promoted the decline of the family.
> That is quite beyond argument or the necessity of further proof,
> except to idiot engineers who fancy themselves polemicists.
All such sweeping assertions, particularly when only backed by
"everyone knows" beg for proof. Statistically, the number of children
(US) in single-parent households stayed essentially flat from 1960 to
1977. It more than doubled from 1977 to 1980, and again from 1980 to
1990, and again (almost) from 1990 to 1999. Perhaps this was a (very)
delayed reaction from Great Society programs, but the timing is
suspect. Of course there's the whole correlation/causation issue, too.
I know it's a favorite right-wing talking point, but you'll have to do
better than "everybody knows".
http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/ms-la/tabad-2.txt
> > And you'll have to provide some evidence for Christian non-violence.
>
> You're making my case for me, Colesy. It is part of the inhumanity and
> arrogance of the left to refuse to see any good in anyone except
> themselves. It is that same reckless, arrogant inhumanity which turns
> them into genocides, as I demonstrated on this conference already for
> the banning of DDT (Rachel Carson, the saint of the environmentalists,
> is the most effective genocidal maniac the world has ever, and
> everyone who ever marched to ban DDT, or publicly approved of the ban,
> is complicit). There will a similar murderous outcome to the entire
> 'global warming' mess, which is just another excuse for the reckless,
> inhumane social engineers you love so much to control all our lives --
> and, not so incidentally, keep their nice green gated communities
> entirely (dare I say it?) white, with just enough blacks (middle-
> class, of course) to escape accusations of racism. They have already
> wasted enough money to bring the entire world out of hunger and
> poverty, and to cut infant deaths drastically, and to give everyone a
> primary education and clean water. So much for the "good intentions"
> of your lot.
The DDT thing is another favorite piece of liberal-bashing. In prior
threads I think I rebutted those claims. Believe it or not, I
approached the question with an open mind and came away convinced that
the charges were nonsense. One of the glaring facts was that the USSR
banned DDT before the US did -- you know the former USSR, that bastion
of liberalism and environmental sensitivity.
> By contrast the intended and unintended effects of Christianity can be
> seen all around you, in fact are the only reason you can shoot off
> your fat mouth without getting some thought policeman's boot in it.
> Without Christianity we might still be living in a society that
> condones slavery. That is overwhelming proof already; I'm surprised
> that you don't know it, Colesy. Or is it because the Republicans
> emancipated the blacks that you now deny the role of Christianity,
> because the Democrats are the party of the slave-owners, -drivers and
> whippers-in?
Your attempt to link liberalism to support of slavery and racism is
very original, but I can't seem to find any support for it in the
history I've read. Certainly the Southern Democrats ("Dixie-crats")
started defecting under FDR and later Truman (integrated the military)
and finally JFK & LBJ. Where did they go? I think we all know that.
The relationship of Christianity to slavery in the US is complex.
While many churches were active in the abolition movement, others
supported slavery. A famous figure was George Whitefield, an Anglican
minister and central figure in the Great Awakening (early evangelical
movement), actually succeeding in getting slavery legalized in Georgia
in 1751. Don't forget that the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan was the
cross.
All of that is very interesting, especially your eccentric beliefs,
but the issue was Christian non-violence, not slavery.
Peter Cole
> Colesy is hypersensitive to slights to the most powerful man in the
> world because he happens to be milk chocolate coloured! (Hey, Colesy,
> if George W Bush was a moron as so many of your kind claimed,
> shouldn't you have complained about the insults to him, even if only
> to avoid the stench of hypocrisy?)
I am troubled by the disrespect being shown to the office of the
president. A catcall during a joint session address? When has that
ever happened? Not during the Bush administration. Many many have
opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were accused of hoping
for American defeat, but I never heard anyone actually cheer an
American defeat as they did when the US got rejected for the Olympics.
Finally, the US government has spoken out in opposition to the
military coup in Honduras, but now a US senator is leading a
delegation to "support" the coup leaders? "Hanoi Jane" was one thing,
this is quite another.
>
> Such sensitivity for one individual (even if nominally black) sits
> oddly with Peter's observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals,
> a pretty common disease of pinkos, that they bleed for humanity but
> are totally indifferent to the suffering and death of individuals.
> (The case of the banning of DDT killing about 220 million of the
> poorest and most helpless people on earth is well established as a
> gross example of the arrogant know-betters imposing their will
> regardless of foreseeable genocidal consequences.)
You keep returning to that same old (mis-told) story. But we've (I've)
been through all that. As far as personal responsibility, the DDT ban
in this country happened before I was old enough to vote. I don't
think my opinion mattered much in Africa and Asia, either. To tell you
the truth, I didn't have an opinion til you brought it up.
Evidence for my "observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals"?
That's a pretty serious charge, I hope you can back it up.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 3, 7:15�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Colesy is hypersensitive to slights to the most powerful man in the
>> world because he happens to be milk chocolate coloured! (Hey, Colesy,
>> if George W Bush was a moron as so many of your kind claimed,
>> shouldn't you have complained about the insults to him, even if only
>> to avoid the stench of hypocrisy?)
>
>I am troubled by the disrespect being shown to the office of the
>president. A catcall during a joint session address? When has that
>ever happened? Not during the Bush administration.
Boos and hissing. It is better if a bunch of people do it? Neither is right. But
don't pretend this is new.
> Many many have
>opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were accused of hoping
>for American defeat, but I never heard anyone actually cheer an
>American defeat as they did when the US got rejected for the Olympics.
1 - Hosting an Olympics is something of a white elephant, it's benefit is
arguable at best.
2 - Lobbying the IOC is probably the most trivial international matter Obama
will undertake this (or any other) year.
3 - It wasn't conservatives who decided that this was all about Obama. You can
thank his PR staff and the press for that. (if that wasn't redundant)
4 - Part of the rap on Obama is that he seems to think that he can charm
everything into place by his mere presence and telepromper reading.
5 - It is good to see him learn better on an issue far less important than
Russian aggression or Iranian nukes.
6 - Schadenfreude. Human trait, most often seen when the subject is perceived as
arrogant.
>Finally, the US government has spoken out in opposition to the
>military coup in Honduras, but now a US senator is leading a
>delegation to "support" the coup leaders? "Hanoi Jane" was one thing,
>this is quite another.
1 - Not a coup. Legal removal of a rogue president who was attempting to
establish himself as president for life.
1a - Srsly. The Honduran courts and legislature were together on this. What
would you have wanted done if, say, GWB ordered an election in March 2006 to
give him another term. You'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with me to have
him removed.
2 - What a short memory you have. Congressional delegations to Iraq long after
the US policy of regime change had been established. Support and advice to the
Sandinistas.
>> �Such sensitivity for one individual (even if nominally black) sits
>> oddly with Peter's observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals,
>> a pretty common disease of pinkos, that they bleed for humanity but
>> are totally indifferent to the suffering and death of individuals.
>> (The case of the banning of DDT killing about 220 million of the
>> poorest and most helpless people on earth is well established as a
>> gross example of the arrogant know-betters imposing their will
>> regardless of foreseeable genocidal consequences.)
>
>You keep returning to that same old (mis-told) story. But we've (I've)
>been through all that. As far as personal responsibility, the DDT ban
>in this country happened before I was old enough to vote. I don't
>think my opinion mattered much in Africa and Asia, either. To tell you
>the truth, I didn't have an opinion til you brought it up.
We, the US and Europe decided that DDT should be banned worldwide (along with
determinations that wetlands should be preserved and all species protected)
after OUR swamps were drained and OUR malaria problem solved and OUR large
predators extinct. It was indeed arrogant.
>Evidence for my "observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals"?
>That's a pretty serious charge, I hope you can back it up.
The trope goes "liberals are all about what's good for The People, but don't
give a damn about actual people." There's enough truth in it to keep it going.
RonSonic
wrote:
>On Oct 3, 7:06�pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
The idea for which they apparently got from a movie, since it was unknown among
the various reconstruction era goons, and adopted after the release of Birth of
a Nation. Nothing much Christian about it. If anything, mythically Scottish and,
uh, clannish.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Finally, the US government has spoken out in opposition to the
>> military coup in Honduras, but now a US senator is leading a
>> delegation to "support" the coup leaders? "Hanoi Jane" was one thing,
>> this is quite another.
>
> 1 - Not a coup. Legal removal of a rogue president who was attempting to
> establish himself as president for life.
> 1a - Srsly. The Honduran courts and legislature were together on this. What
> would you have wanted done if, say, GWB ordered an election in March 2006 to
> give him another term. You'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with me to have
Stop believing the utter bullshit they are feeding you. This is one of
the most ridiculously untrue things I have ever read.
No one but the coup plotters and their corporatist supporters (including
many stenographers to power posing as journalists) believe those lies.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
RonSonic
He didn't schedule a special election?
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 14:34:58 -0500, Tom Sherman �_�
> <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>> RonSonic aka Ron Bales wrote:
>>> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter...@verizon.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>> Finally, the US government has spoken out in opposition to the
>>>> military coup in Honduras, but now a US senator is leading a
>>>> delegation to "support" the coup leaders? "Hanoi Jane" was one thing,
>>>> this is quite another.
>>> 1 - Not a coup. Legal removal of a rogue president who was attempting to
>>> establish himself as president for life.
>>> 1a - Srsly. The Honduran courts and legislature were together on this. What
>>> would you have wanted done if, say, GWB ordered an election in March 2006 to
>>> give him another term. You'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with me to have
>>> him removed.[...]
>> Stop believing the utter bullshit they are feeding you. This is one of
>> the most ridiculously untrue things I have ever read.
>>
>> No one but the coup plotters and their corporatist supporters (including
>> many stenographers to power posing as journalists) believe those lies.
>
> He didn't schedule a special election?
>
>
election. Try a news source that reports facts, not corporate propaganda.
The situation in Honduras is nothing but an old-fashioned fascist coup
to suppress the rights of the people in favor or greater foreign
multi-national corporate profits.
Tim McNamara
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
> -snip-
> > These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
> > just happens to be black.
>
> That all ya got?
> Sheesh.
How much more you need, Andrew? 'Cuz there's lots 'n' lots of examples
of covert, not-so-covert and overt racism towards Obama, especially on
the right wingnut side of the aisle.
Peter Cole
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 08:09:32 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 3, 7:15 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> Colesy is hypersensitive to slights to the most powerful man in the
> >> world because he happens to be milk chocolate coloured! (Hey, Colesy,
> >> if George W Bush was a moron as so many of your kind claimed,
> >> shouldn't you have complained about the insults to him, even if only
> >> to avoid the stench of hypocrisy?)
>
> >I am troubled by the disrespect being shown to the office of the
> >president. A catcall during a joint session address? When has that
> >ever happened? Not during the Bush administration.
>
> Boos and hissing. It is better if a bunch of people do it? Neither is right. But
> don't pretend this is new.
Calling the president a liar during a congressional speech is new.
>
> > Many many have
> >opposed the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and were accused of hoping
> >for American defeat, but I never heard anyone actually cheer an
> >American defeat as they did when the US got rejected for the Olympics.
>
> 1 - Hosting an Olympics is something of a white elephant, it's benefit is
> arguable at best.
> 2 - Lobbying the IOC is probably the most trivial international matter Obama
> will undertake this (or any other) year.
> 3 - It wasn't conservatives who decided that this was all about Obama. You can
> thank his PR staff and the press for that. (if that wasn't redundant)
> 4 - Part of the rap on Obama is that he seems to think that he can charm
> everything into place by his mere presence and telepromper reading.
> 5 - It is good to see him learn better on an issue far less important than
> Russian aggression or Iranian nukes.
> 6 - Schadenfreude. Human trait, most often seen when the subject is perceived as
> arrogant.
You are rationalizing. The president went to Copenhagen to lobby on
behalf of Chicago. Hosting the Olympics may or may not be a profit
generator, but it's an event of national pride -- just ask the
Chinese. To be joyful over a rejection is just twisted. Those people
are un-American. As are DeMint and Wilson.
> >Finally, the US government has spoken out in opposition to the
> >military coup in Honduras, but now a US senator is leading a
> >delegation to "support" the coup leaders? "Hanoi Jane" was one thing,
> >this is quite another.
>
> 1 - Not a coup. Legal removal of a rogue president who was attempting to
> establish himself as president for life.
Not true.
> 1a - Srsly. The Honduran courts and legislature were together on this. What
> would you have wanted done if, say, GWB ordered an election in March 2006 to
> give him another term. You'd be standing shoulder to shoulder with me to have
> him removed.
The "courts and legislature" arrested him at gunpoint and deported him
from the country. That's hardly a legal process, even in Nicaragua.
All of the above, doesn't alter the position of the US State Dept and
DeMint's flaunting of his opposition.
> 2 - What a short memory you have. Congressional delegations to Iraq long after
> the US policy of regime change had been established. Support and advice to the
> Sandinistas.
You misrepresent history. I'd be happy to hear examples you might
have.
> We, the US and Europe decided that DDT should be banned worldwide (along with
> determinations that wetlands should be preserved and all species protected)
> after OUR swamps were drained and OUR malaria problem solved and OUR large
> predators extinct. It was indeed arrogant.
DDT was outlawed for agricultural use in the US. It is still legal for
mosquito control. There are more effective, and safer, alternatives.
The US does not have the power, or desire, to ban DDT internationally.
Some countries continue to use it, some not. Some discontinued then
resumed. As far as I know, there has never been significant opposition
to indoor spraying (the most effective malaria control) other than
local populaces who were, understandably, concerned about human
accumulation of a toxin, it had nothing to do with wildlife or birds.
Anti-malarial drugs were at one time considered a more practical
(cheaper) solution. That had nothing to do with DDT and wildlife. It's
a right-wing myth.
> >Evidence for my "observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals"?
> >That's a pretty serious charge, I hope you can back it up.
>
> The trope goes "liberals are all about what's good for The People, but don't
> give a damn about actual people." There's enough truth in it to keep it going.
Sorry, it's just bullshit. It makes no logical sense.
Our distinguished senators from South Carolina just have to get over
the fact that we have a black president.
AMuzi
>> -snip-
>>> These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
>>> just happens to be black.
> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>> That all ya got?
>> Sheesh.
Tim McNamara wrote:
> How much more you need, Andrew? 'Cuz there's lots 'n' lots of examples
> of covert, not-so-covert and overt racism towards Obama, especially on
> the right wingnut side of the aisle.
Does racism exist? Probably yes to some extent. I view him
much as I do Pelosi (d'Alesandro) and she is actually
Italian. Which is to say policy and ethnicity are unrelated.
Peter Cole
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 07:41:48 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net>
Like most lies, a kernel (but no more) of truth:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK#The_burning_cross
"Cross burning is said to have been introduced by William J. Simmons,
the founder of the second Klan in 1915."
"Simmons adopted the burning Latin cross wholesale from the movie,
prominently displaying it at the 1915 Stone Mountain meeting, and the
incendiary symbol has been indelibly associated with the Ku Klux Klan
ever since."
You think they were unaware that the Latin cross was a Christian
symbol? Please. It was coincidental that members were all Protestant?
Please.
For further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillar_of_Fire_Church
"While the Pillar of Fire's repudiation characterized its association
with the Klan as brief, it continued for at least several decades to
promote its ideologies of intolerance for religious and racial
minorities and of equality for white Protestant women. These
ideologies were important drivers, at least initially, for the
church's partnership with the Klan. In 1943, 21 years after the church
began publicly working with the Klan, it republished Bishop White's
pro-KKK books as a three volume set under the name Guardians of
Liberty with volume two having an introduction by Bishop Arthur White,
Alma's son and second General Superintendent."
Tom Sherman °_°
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>> -snip-
>>>> These things are without precedent, and are about our president. Who
>>>> just happens to be black.
>
>> AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
>>> That all ya got?
>>> Sheesh.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> How much more you need, Andrew? 'Cuz there's lots 'n' lots of
>> examples of covert, not-so-covert and overt racism towards Obama,
>> especially on the right wingnut side of the aisle.
>
> Does racism exist? Probably yes to some extent. I view him much as I do
> Pelosi (d'Alesandro) and she is actually Italian. Which is to say policy
> and ethnicity are unrelated.
More partisanship than policy in any case. Both Clinton and Obama
were/are right-wing corporatists. The only possibly liberal policy of
either one has to do with sexual morality.
Frank Krygowski
I may be the only one posting here who's troubled to read an entire
book on mosquitoes. (In fact, I've read at least two.)
As is often the case, Peter Cole is right, and the person pushing the
right wing argument is wrong. Makes me wonder if right wingers _ever_
read science.
Beyond that: Given DDT's horrific effect on raptors and other
wildlife, I think it's unconscionable to pretend that the restriction
of widespread DDT use was a mistake. Good grief, how many species
have to vanish before the "market uber alles" crew grows a conscience?
- Frank Krygowski
Clive George
news:hab8o6$4ev$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Does racism exist? Probably yes to some extent. I view him much as I do
> Pelosi (d'Alesandro) and she is actually Italian. Which is to say policy
> and ethnicity are unrelated.
How you view them isn't the point. I get the impression you're not generally
nuts, but that doesn't preclude others from being so.
SMS
> Per Frank Krygowski:
>> Then the proper solution is to slow the traffic down, and perhaps to
>> prohibit most of it near schools.
>>
>> Walking and cycling should be treated as absolute rights, and kids
>> should be _strongly_ encouraged to transport themselves.
>
> I agree with all of the above.
Unfortunately, the solution is very difficult in most communities. Very
few cities have a commitment to any sort of traffic calming and efforts
to close off roads at certain times of day meet with resistance from
residents. Furthermore, most cities have city governments that are
bought and paid for by developers who have little interest in
non-motorized transportation.
In my city three out of five of the city council members wanted to do
traffic calming but the director of public works was very much against
it. Unfortunately, the only person that can order the DPW to do anything
(or fire him) is the city manager, who three council members want to
fire, but who has a contract that requires 4 out of 5 votes to
terminate. It's a nightmare. To elect 4 out of 5 council members that
are not owned by developers is very difficult because the developers
give substantial campaign contributions. Our current mayor voted to
rezone a large parcel that was owned by his former employer, a company
that he still consults for and that he owns stock in. It was a clear
conflict of interest that we filed a complaint with the FPPC about, and
after three years they indeed did rule against him but did nothing
because 'he received bad legal advice.' The 'bad legal advice' came from
the city attorney who specialized in bad legal advice when it suits the
city council, because they know that it's extremely rare that anyone
will complain and even rarer that there will be any penalties.
Andre Jute
Welcome to Animal Farm, Scarfie. You'll be relieved to know that here
on Animal Farm we do things exactly like people do in their cities...
Andre Jute
I was proud to be published by Secker & Warburg, which had the balls
to publish Orwell after the commies threatened to put his erstwhile
publisher out of business if he published the "renegade"
Andre Jute
220 million humans dead of malaria and hunger because DDT was banned
but good old Krygo cries crocodile tears for a few alligators and
eagles, and claims it is all a rightwing corporate plot. Typical.
Creepy crawlies matter, people are a plague, eh, Krygo?
Andre Jute
"By definition, the presence of a cam tells you it's not 2-stroke."
-- "jim beam", internet ignoramus, proving his "competence"
Andre Jute
Which church are you talking about, Colesy? Any "church" called
"Pillar of Fire" will soon have some bishop-shaped salt pillars close
by...
Andre Jute
First prize in the Bible class -- it shaped me for a life of
excellence, I tell you. Can I show you my Boy Scout badges?
Andre Jute
The accusation of "racism" is a convenient shorthand for saying, "I
won't consider what you say because you aren't one of us," same as the
accusation of being a "rightwinger" precludes reasoning with people so
labelled. These blanket exclusions are very useful for people like
Colesy when they realize that, while engineers are no doubt
intelligent, the world abounds in clever and articulate people with
whom they would be ill-advised to debate anything at all but certainly
not politics, which doesn't answer to the blind certainties of their
professional lives. Colesy is a particularly gross example of the
insensitive engineer; I can't decide whether I should laugh at his
risible certainties (I mean, if you have a morbid sense of humour,
Colesy is funny in the same way as Dr Strangelove was funny) or pity
him for being cast unprepared into an uncertain world.
Andre Jute
Wordsmith
Tim McNamara
<d0da223c-c32c-4ab2...@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,
Frank Krygowski <frkr...@gmail.com> wrote:
All of them. And then it's too late.
Andre Jute
As far as I can see, Colesy, you're the only one on RBT who still
remembers or cares that Obama is nominally black. Before you hint that
anyone else may be a racist, you should look into your own heart.
When I lived in South Africa under apartheid, which the police took
seriously enough to have four or five vans full of men outside my
house most days -- I referred to them on invitations to parties as "my
private goon squad will direct you to parking" -- , I had a chum who
is now the leader of a whole nation. He'd come into a room full of
trendies, just like you (I had a lot of chums at HP and IBM and
suchlike, engineers who *knew* everything to three decimal places),
and shout, "Here's Andre's tame nigger!" Then we few with balls would
watch the limousine liberals fade, the engineers and the theatre
pretties, the loudtalking commies that when I wanted a hand on a
bolshie fire hose turned on the police were nowhere to be seen, the
wannabe radical politicians made uncomfortable by a black prince
because he wasn't a manual worker. PC-ness was a dead certain way of
telling who could not be counted on to stand up and fight back when
the police batons started flying, of who would be lying on the floor
with their hands over their heads, whining, "I don't really know these
people."
You'll forgive me, Colesy, If I am not overcome with admiration for
your limp expressions of liberalism. You're just another trendy, man.
Trendies are a plague, none of them worth spit in the bucket. You have
absolutely nothing to do with people who achieve liberal aims. In
fact, you have no visible liberal aims; quite the contrary: from the
way you talk I'd have absolutely no problem extracting a coherent neo-
fascist agenda from you.
You should stick to bicycle matters, Colesy.
Andre Jute
Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live -- Mark Twain
Andre Jute
> In article <ha87vb$vb...@news.eternal-september.org>,
I dunno why you guys are getting so hot under the collar. Some of us
"rightwingers" can't even understand why decent people like the Bushes
wanted an office already so degraded as the presidency. Some of us
having been feeling that way since they let a Catholic live in the
White House. -- (signed) Genghis Khan
Andre Jute
> On Oct 3, 7:15 pm, Andre Jute <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<
> > Such sensitivity for one individual (even if nominally black) sits
> > oddly with Peter's observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals,
> > a pretty common disease of pinkos, that they bleed for humanity but
> > are totally indifferent to the suffering and death of individuals.
> > (The case of the banning of DDT killing about 220 million of the
> > poorest and most helpless people on earth is well established as a
> > gross example of the arrogant know-betters imposing their will
> > regardless of foreseeable genocidal consequences.)
>
> You keep returning to that same old (mis-told) story. But we've (I've)
> been through all that.
No, Colesy, you threw around a lot of lies and arrogance, and I let it
go because this is a bicycle conference. *We* have most definitely not
"been through all that".
>As far as personal responsibility, the DDT ban
> in this country happened before I was old enough to vote.
This demonstrates what i mean when I say you're not a liberal, you're
just a trendy. You thought it was trendy to defend the actions people
took before you were born because you thought it was the trendy thing
to do. Those people who you defended, killed 220 million of the most
defenseless people on earth, merely to flex their muscles against the
democratically elected houses of governance -- look it up if you don't
believe me: the organizers of the protests against DDT *bragged* that
they knew it had caused not a single human cancer but that they used
the protest to show the government who was really in charge.
But Peter Coles, trendy and wannabe liberal, defends them! Now he
wants to backpedal that he wasn't even born when they committed their
crime. Next he'll claim he never defended their crime.
> I don't
> think my opinion mattered much in Africa and Asia, either.
Oh, it does, Peter, it does. I shall arrange for a village of black
families to curse you daily, dawn and dusk, for in effect wishing them
dead.
>To tell you
> the truth, I didn't have an opinion til you brought it up.
So as a trendy reflex action, you defended the indefensible, and now
you whine because I have the poor manner to point out that you're
complicit in a genocide.
> Evidence for my "observable inhumanity when it comes to individuals"?
> That's a pretty serious charge, I hope you can back it up.
Why should I need to? Can't you google your own messages? Go looking
for the one where, after I explained to you that Rachel Carson and the
banners of DDT killed 220 million people, you told us with chlllingly
casual arrogance, "Oh, we're allowing them to use DDT again, under
controlled circumstances." Who elected you God, Peter Cole? (BTW, that
statement also gives the lie to your claim that it isn't the US who
enforced the worldwide ban on DDT; what you can "allow" you can also
forbid. But we already have too many lies from you to correct them all
on a bicycle conference.)
What is even more disgusting is that you apparently don't even realize
that your stupidity and insensitivity and inexperience and
parochialism and, yes, your trendy arrogance, is killing people who
have no voice. I would be happy to explain the mechanism by which you
do it, if you're really too thick to work it out; just ask.
And when you are told, you repeatedly tell us that because only
"rightwingers" speak for them, the deaths of 220 million defenseless
people, deliberately caused by your type of moralizing moron for the
most despicable reasons (a deliberate grab for political power), don't
matter.
This should go a fair way to explaining why I treat you, and the other
pretend-liberal clowns on RBT with such disdain, while I treat
rightwingers like Sorni and Ron Bales and radicals like Chalo with
equal respect because at least their views are reasoned and sincere,
not like yours, which express the morality of a street-corner gang-
banger, who will do anything at all to belong to the in-group.
I've told you before, Colesy. You don't have the brains to discuss
politics with me. You should step back before you get hurt.
Andre Jute
Bored with these posturing ponces
Andre Jute
> All of that is very interesting, especially your eccentric beliefs,
> but the issue was Christian non-violence, not slavery.
Oh, Christ, Colesy, where were you educated? You should ask for a
return of your tuition. Slavery, taking away all a person's rights,
giving someone else the right to choose whether he lives or dies, is
the ultimate form of violence. That has been recognized since Roman
times, as you would know if you had been properly educated.
Andre Jute
> The DDT thing is another favorite piece of liberal-bashing. In prior
> threads I think I rebutted those claims. Believe it or not, I
> approached the question with an open mind and came away convinced that
> the charges were nonsense. One of the glaring facts was that the USSR
> banned DDT before the US did -- you know the former USSR, that bastion
> of liberalism and environmental sensitivity.
How does the fact that the USSR banned DDT excuse the mass murder by
US-financed and -influenced bodies of 220 million people?
This is a non-sequitur, Colesy. If you're doing it because your logic
is faulty, apologize and stay out of subjects beyond your analytical
ability. If it is merely a debating trick -- where the subject is the
genocide of 220 million -- you're disgusting.
Andre Jute
My patience is running out
Andre Jute
<noEmailto...@stillnodomainey.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 19:34:10 -0700 (PDT), Andre Jute
>
> <fiult...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >220 million humans dead of malaria and hunger because DDT was banned
> >but good old Krygo cries crocodile tears for a few alligators and
> >eagles, and claims it is all a rightwing corporate plot. Typical.
> >Creepy crawlies matter, people are a plague, eh, Krygo?
>
> left anyway.
So 220 million dead is just the beginning? You and Colesy should get a
room so you can discuss your absolute right to kill people to save the
planet. Every neo-fascist agenda should have clear goals. How many
billions do you reckon you'll have to kill to save the bugs? Two
billion, four billion?
Do you ever think of the meaning of the crap you send to RBT, sonny?
Andre Jute
Not so difficult to put your mind in gear. Just ask: What are the
consequences? For whom?
RonSonic
wrote:
>> >The relationship of Christianity to slavery in the US is complex.
>> >While many churches were active in the abolition movement, others
>> >supported slavery. A famous figure was George Whitefield, an Anglican
>> >minister and central figure in the Great Awakening (early evangelical
>> >movement), actually succeeding in getting slavery legalized in Georgia
>> >in 1751. Don't forget that the symbol of the Ku Klux Klan was the
>> >cross.
>>
>> The idea for which they apparently got from a movie, since it was unknown among
>> the various reconstruction era goons, and adopted after the release of Birth of
>> a Nation. Nothing much Christian about it. If anything, mythically Scottish and,
>> uh, clannish.
>
>Like most lies, a kernel (but no more) of truth:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KKK#The_burning_cross
>
>"Cross burning is said to have been introduced by William J. Simmons,
>the founder of the second Klan in 1915."
>"Simmons adopted the burning Latin cross wholesale from the movie,
>prominently displaying it at the 1915 Stone Mountain meeting, and the
>incendiary symbol has been indelibly associated with the Ku Klux Klan
>ever since."
>
>You think they were unaware that the Latin cross was a Christian
>symbol? Please. It was coincidental that members were all Protestant?
>Please.
Some bunch of thugs see something in a movie, emulate it and you make
Christianity of it.
Is it coincidental that the people fighting the klan were Christian? Please.
Ron
Peter Cole
> On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 16:01:47 -0700 (PDT), Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net>
Sure, the clan was opposed by nearly all organized Christian churches,
but at the same time was focused on opposition to Jews and Catholics,
in addition to blacks. Denying that the Klan was Christian is like
denying the Taliban is Muslim. Christianity, like Islam, is a force
that can go either way. The same, of course, can be said for the anti-
religion believers, atheism/anti-theism, too, can be benign or
destructive.
In the context of the initial claim, while it's true that Christianity
has non-violence as a central tenet, even (arguably) more central than
any other major faith, the irony is that perhaps more violence (again
arguably) has been done by groups with Christian affiliations than any
other. To paraphrase Gandhi's famous remarks about Western
Civilization, I think Christian non-violence would be a good idea. The
actual track record is not so good.
Peter Cole
> No, Colesy, you threw around a lot of lies and arrogance, and I let it
> go because this is a bicycle conference. *We* have most definitely not
> "been through all that".
What, in the interest of brevity? In respect of topicality?
You say nothing because you've got nothing. Stop wasting bandwidth.
Peter Cole
Whenever there is progress, there's the inevitable backlash. That's
true for racial progress. If there was one characteristic that
identifies the conservative outlook it's reactionism. Resistance to
change and cynicism about its consequences is part of human nature,
and valuable to a degree. The problem I see is that the rate of change
of physical reality is exceeding the "natural" human tolerance for it.
It's no accident that the friction occurs at the edges of the areas
that are changing fastest -- culture & science. The real challenge for
humanity is not whether we can engineer these changes, but whether our
individual and collective powers of reason are capable of tolerating
the inevitable discomfort that change brings. The "cultures in
conflict" theory of the neo-cons is really a misperception. What we
really have is a "conflict of eras" -- that's as true in the remnants
of Dixie as it is in Afghanistan. How fast can we evolve? Will it be
fatal, or just ugly? History suggests it won't be fun. Like the old
Chinese curse: "May you live during interesting times." Unfortunately,
we're almost certainly living during one of the most "interesting"
times in human history.