This will be a good decade for bicycling!
Tom Sherman °_°
existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
serfs.
--
"Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
benefactors." - David Michael Green
DougC
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
> serfs.
>
So you mean that everywhere will be as nice to ride as Detroit is?
~
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
As wealth concentrate even further, the bicycle will come to mean the
vehicle of proletarian struggle and a full blown revolution will
explode in the year 2017, celabrating the centenary of the Bolshevik
revolution.
The owners of SUVs will repent from their past and will be re-educated
with hard pedaling.
Ron Wallenfang
I have no opinion on your political projections, Tom. They're probably
as good as the experts, which isn't saying much.
But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
fitness - even heat sometimes.
Dan O
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
> serfs.
>
I agree that these circumstances exist and would tend to put bicycling
on the rise, but for real change in the USA something's gotta give:
$50 gas or no gas at all or... I don't know. People say this would
botch the economy,, but nature finds a way, and bicycles have a lot
going for them.
"We're heading for the day of reckoning. I'm tellin' ya! Its all
building up to something, something that can only be redeemed with
fire!"
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
I think first you have to topple capitalism...
But no gas at all, could be a good outcome.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:hhllq4$14k$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private motorized
> transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road, and more
> bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto serfs.
Mr. Sherman desires nothing better for mankind than the kind of society
which prevailed in the Soviet Union for most of my life. That is where full
out socialism (communism) will land you. I do not recall many bicycles ever
being ridden in the Soviet Union.
> "Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
> consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
> classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
> deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
> benefactors." - David Michael Green
I doubt that was ever the intention however it worked out. Capitalism
without some government regulation is impossible I must admit. But let us
never throw out the baby with the bath water. Follow Mr. Sherman and you
will end up living in a "communist paradise", i.e., the old Soviet Union.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
"Ron Wallenfang" <rwall...@wi.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4cd09da4-c603-4349...@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 1, 2:26 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
> serfs.
>> I have no opinion on your political projections, Tom. They're probably
as good as the experts, which isn't saying much.
>> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
fitness - even heat sometimes.
Mr. Sherman has advised me in a previous post that he is now living in
Eastern Iowa (exactly where he didn't say). He probably thinks Iowa is
somehow less than Wisconsin, never realizing that Iowa is infinitely
superior to Wisconsin in everything but scenery. However, for a true
paradise on this earth, you must go to Minnesota where you will have the
privilege of freezing to death. As I write this, it is 20 degrees below
zero. Hells Bells, I cannot even go out of the house, let alone ride a
freaking bicycle.
Edward Dolan
"DougC" <dci...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
news:XMt%m.88$nR...@newsfe01.iad...
Doug, although I know you are an idiot from previous posts, you also
approach sheer genius at times. Indeed, cycling is a proclivity of an elite,
but one not based on income. Americans will never resort to cycling to get
around. If they are as poor as church mice, they will either walk or take
public transportation.
Cycling only becomes a mass transportation thing in a society where it is
culturally ingrained such as it was in China of recent decades. The
socialist-communist serfs of the former Soviet Union never took to cycling
because it was not in their culture to do so and it most certainly is not in
the American culture ever to resort to cycling no matter how dire the
circumstances. Only a cultural elite ever gets into cycling. Very funny that
Mr. Sherman does not realize this very elementary fact of life.
delboy
> "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
DC
Edward Dolan
"delboy" <del.co...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a547d631-6f11-4bca...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
That is substantially correct. But if the Europeans had more elbow room they
would not be any different. We humans live only in our own time and take no
heed for whatever problems we might be creating for future generations.
Life is for the living and let the dead bury the dead!
Unlike most Americans I use my bicycle to go almost everywhere in town. I
use it for all chores as well such as grocery shopping (I have a trike with
a large basket in the rear). But I am the one and only who does any of this.
I put my car into mothballs for the winter months (November through March).
AMuzi
>> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
>> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
>> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
>> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of de-facto
>> serfs.
>> "Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
>> consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
>> classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
>> deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
>> benefactors." - David Michael Green
Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> I have no opinion on your political projections, Tom. They're probably
> as good as the experts, which isn't saying much.
> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
> politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
> rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
> fitness - even heat sometimes.
If not for the cold, what ever would we bitch about?
http://www.yellowjersey.org/nyx.html
Triumph over adversity and all that. It was 20 degrees
colder today, definitely a "flaps down" ride this morning.
p.s. Tom has emigrated to Iowa. Same weather, more meth.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
> guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
> the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
> planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
AMuzi
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Triumph over adversity and all that.[...]
As long as it not a Stag - gah!
<http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/a/a6/1975.triumph.stag.red.arp.jpg>
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, they also walk at the shopping malls. But there's a lot of hope
things will change in the next 100 years.
Ron Ruff
> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
> politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
> rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
> fitness - even heat sometimes.
Always it is either a bicycle... or a big car... nothing in between.
We can easily (cheaply) make small enclosed electric vehicles that
weigh ~500lbs haul two people at 50mph with a 40mi range... and be
much more comfortable than a bike in inclimate weather, while using
about 5% of the energy of your typical SUV. Plenty or other benefits,
like no more gridlock or parking problems... but we must *first* make
the roads safe for small vehicles (and bikes!) by restricting the use
of large vehicles.
Nate Nagel
They won't meet US safety standards for a motor vehicle. If you want
one you'll have to build it yourself as and register it as a "homebuilt
car."
That said, I don't understand the size of most American cars. My
favorite car of all time was my old VW Scirocco and most people seemed
to think it was "tiny" whereas I found it perfectly adequate for most of
my needs, and in truth, a one or two seater would have served me just as
well for daily commuting.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
Dan O
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Jan 1, 9:28 pm, Ron Wallenfang <rwallenf...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
> >> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
> >> politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
> >> rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
> >> fitness - even heat sometimes.
>
> > Always it is either a bicycle... or a big car... nothing in between.
> > We can easily (cheaply) make small enclosed electric vehicles that
> > weigh ~500lbs haul two people at 50mph with a 40mi range... and be
> > much more comfortable than a bike in inclimate weather, while using
> > about 5% of the energy of your typical SUV. Plenty or other benefits,
> > like no more gridlock or parking problems... but we must *first* make
> > the roads safe for small vehicles (and bikes!) by restricting the use
> > of large vehicles.
>
> They won't meet US safety standards for a motor vehicle.
> > ... but we must *first* make
> > the roads safe for small vehicles (and bikes!) by restricting the use
> > of large vehicles.
<snip>
Peter Cole
My 1983 Sirocco had a curb weight of around 2200 lb and felt pretty
heavy, especially after my 1600 lb Fiat 850 Spyder. The Smart car is
around the weight of the Fiat. Saab made the Sonett, a 1300 lb, 120 mph
2-seater in 1956. A 500 lb 2-seater might be a reach without relaxing
some safety rules, but 1,000 lb shouldn't be too difficult. The
Messerschmitt KR200 was a 500 lb 2-seater in the 1950's. For the spec
above, current SOA for single passenger street legal electrics seems
around 1300 lb (Myers NMG).
Nate Nagel
I don't think any of those cars could be built today. Don't forget
bumper standards, airbags, ABS, etc. etc. etc. plus even if you managed
to build a true lightweight that (barely) met minimum standards it would
still be panned by all the critics for being a deathtrap - and if you
consider "safety" to be safety in a crash they'd be right.
At some point in the late 60s or early 70s we stopped concentrating on
getting people to cooperate and not bump into each other and put most of
the onus on the auto mfgrs. to provide a safe cocoon for all occupants
even in the worst crashes. Not that crash safety isn't bad, but
driver's ed, compliance with rules of the road, and even the rules
themselves have been let slip in the intervening years. I blame Nader,
Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
AMuzi
And there were a host of ~1 ton cars which were plenty stiff
for good handling, low, comfortable and quick like a bat out
of hell. I own two myself. 6,000lb new crud is simply an
abomination.
Ron Ruff
> They won't meet US safety standards for a motor vehicle. If you want
> one you'll have to build it yourself as and register it as a "homebuilt
> car."
3 wheels... two in front and one in back... classed as a motorcycle.
Ron Wallenfang
"[r]estricting the use of large vehicles" how?? The prototypical
"large vehicle" is the semi, and they are the lifeblood of the
economy, although I often refer to them with less flattering terms.
Although I bicycled 16,780 miles in 2009, and 298,613 since I started
keeping daily records in 1993, I may have to identify myself as a
villain. My wife and I have 6 children, which required a large
vehicle, plain and simple. The last of them - a 2001 Dodge Gran
Caravan - we still have, though it doesn't get much exercise any
more. But when I want to take a group to a Packer game and tailgate,
that's the way. It's also good for hauling loads of compost from the
recycling center to my garden.
My wife drives a 2007 Buick Rendevous. Now that kids are scattered to
the four winds - Minneapolis, Nashville and New York - we drive out to
see them, and we do it in comfort, often with side trips, and with my
bike on the back to feed my obsession. My sister is in north Florida;
we drive there too.
Maybe it was better in the old days. My mother was one of 7 children;
six lived within 20 miles of each other; and the 7th 90 miles a day.
Milwaukee - 200 miles away - was a long trip. Air travel was out of
the question. Maybe poverty will force a return to those days. But
until it happens......
I believe in conservation and stewardship of our natural and other
resources. I reject waste and conspicuous consumption. But this is a
matter of proportion - a value that has to be weighed with other
values. We were privileged to have all 6 kids and our 5 grandchildren
at home this Christmas. Did that travel use some energy? Yes. Was
it worth it? Absolutely!!!
Ron Ruff
> A 500 lb 2-seater might be a reach without relaxing
> some safety rules, but 1,000 lb shouldn't be too difficult. The
> Messerschmitt KR200 was a 500 lb 2-seater in the 1950's. For the spec
> above, current SOA for single passenger street legal electrics seems
> around 1300 lb (Myers NMG).
This is fairly close to what I'm talking about :http://
www.unisa.edu.au/solarcar/trev/
It weighs 660lbs but also is made to go 75mph and has a 100mi range.
For city travel this is much more than necessary, and I think 500lb is
easily doable.
The biggest safety hazard by far is all these 3+ ton behemoths... that
is why they *must* be restricted to only certain roads and lanes. If
we make travel in small vehicles safe, and also point out the
benefits, I doubt there will be much in the way of sane resistance.
Dan O
<snip>
> driver's ed, compliance with rules of the road, and even the rules
> themselves have been let slip in the intervening years. I blame Nader,
> Claybrook...
<snip>
Jay Beattie
I have to ask: how do you find time to log over 300 miles a week and
take care of six kids and the garden? When I was logging that kind of
mileage back in my racing days, I was lucky to have the energy to
conceive six kids let alone raise them --- and also do my day job and
the garden, etc., etc. -- Jay Beattie.
delboy
wrote:
> delboy wrote:
> > [...]
> > I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
> > guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
> > the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
> > planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
>
> Given your user name, do you drive a Reliant Robin?
No, and my surname starts with C rather than T, so it's not Trotter.
DC
Ron Wallenfang
>
> - Show quoted text -
The big uptick in bike riding began in 1993, when our twins (kids 3
and 4) went off to college, and the youngest two were becoming "lower
maintenance". The heart and soul of my bike mileage is the commute to
work - 21 miles each way, more when time and weather align. Thus
there's no separate commuting time and no need to be riding off
somewhere else to exercise. We've always kept a garden, but just
gotten more "into it" as I've approached retirement. I've only been
bringing in compost the last 3 years. I'm now 66 and fading away from
work like the Cheshire cat. There are other activities, too, but not
all of them at once.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
In *theory* you could drive a car like this in Florida...
http://www.greencar.com/articles/bombardier-debuts-under-7000-neighborhood-electric-vehicle.php
But if you don't have get killed, they'll probably lynch you.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
>
> - Show quoted text -
Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > Always it is either a bicycle... or a big car... nothing in between.
> > We can easily (cheaply) make small enclosed electric vehicles that
> > weigh ~500lbs haul two people at 50mph with a 40mi range... and be
> > much more comfortable than a bike in inclimate weather, while using
> > about 5% of the energy of your typical SUV. Plenty or other benefits,
> > like no more gridlock or parking problems... but we must *first* make
> > the roads safe for small vehicles (and bikes!) by restricting the use
> > of large vehicles.
>
> They won't meet US safety standards for a motor vehicle. If you want
> one you'll have to build it yourself as and register it as a "homebuilt
> car."
>
> That said, I don't understand the size of most American cars. My
> favorite car of all time was my old VW Scirocco and most people seemed
> to think it was "tiny" whereas I found it perfectly adequate for most of
> my needs, and in truth, a one or two seater would have served me just as
> well for daily commuting.
In *theory* you could drive a car like this in Florida...
http://www.greencar.com/articles/bombardier-debuts-under-7000-neighborhood-electric-vehicle.php
But if you don't get killed, they'll probably lynch you.
Ryan Cousineau
AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joMK1WZjP7g
Notes: 2009 Malibu is probably more like 3400 lb new crud, but would
substantially share the construction and safety features of the 6000 lb
new crud. 1959 Bel Air is more like a 3600 lb car, but would
substantially share the safety features (and in some ways, the
construction) of the 1 ton cars.
Among modern, non-exotic vehicles, the Fiat 500 (coming soon to a
Chrysler dealer near you) and the new Mini show the options in 1-ton-ish
modern vehicles which would qualify as low, comfortable, and quick like
a bat out of hell.
A Fiat 500 is a remarkable thing. It's not even much of a boutique car
like the new Mini. It's a cute re-skin of the perfectly pedestrian Fiat
Panda, and it has engine options ranging from the (44/65 mpg US rated)
diesel to the absurd 200-horsepower Abarth Assetto Corse (only 49 made;
it's probably too late to order yours). The latter may exist only to
make the "regular" 133-horsepower Abarth 500 look reasonable.
The market problem for small cars in the US is the value proposition. A
Fiat 500 won't come to market for much less than a Chevy Cobalt or a
Ford Focus (in Europe, the 500 competes against the smaller Ford Ka),
and we don't have the considerable fuel taxes or displacement-based
annual license fees (or tiny streets and parking spots) that motivate
small-car purchases. So you might as well get the Focus, or the next
biggest car, and so forth, if your main goal is moving around with
minimal fuss and maximal utility.
Compare the Smart and the Mini: neither car is a value leader (the Mini
competes on price with various Ford Mustangs), so they sell on a range
of virtues which amount to being small but upmarket, or somehow
specialized (the Smart: the car for urbanites who suck at parking!).
They're good cars, but also niche players.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@gmail.com http://www.wiredcola.com/
"In other newsgroups, they killfile trolls."
"In rec.bicycles.racing, we coach them."
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> My 1983 Sirocco had a curb weight of around 2200 lb and felt pretty
>> heavy, especially after my 1600 lb Fiat 850 Spyder. The Smart car is
>> around the weight of the Fiat. Saab made the Sonett, a 1300 lb, 120
>> mph 2-seater in 1956. A 500 lb 2-seater might be a reach without
>> relaxing some safety rules, but 1,000 lb shouldn't be too difficult.
>> The Messerschmitt KR200 was a 500 lb 2-seater in the 1950's. For the
>> spec above, current SOA for single passenger street legal electrics
>> seems around 1300 lb (Myers NMG).
>
> And there were a host of ~1 ton cars which were plenty stiff for good
> handling, low, comfortable and quick like a bat out of hell. I own two
> myself. 6,000lb new crud is simply an abomination.
Right, 1 tonners are pretty common. 3/4 tonners much less common in the
US, but common around the world. 1/2 tonners are pretty rare, and
probably exotic material/fabrication. 1/4 tonners that the upstream
poster claimed cheap and easy are neither, yet.
Peter Cole
There are plenty of cars in the 3/4 ton class being built around the
world today, even driven in the US.
"safety" is usually exclusively defined as occupant safety in a
multi-vehicle crash. In those terms, bigger is always better, but those
terms are somewhat arbitrary.
> At some point in the late 60s or early 70s we stopped concentrating on
> getting people to cooperate and not bump into each other and put most of
> the onus on the auto mfgrs. to provide a safe cocoon for all occupants
> even in the worst crashes. Not that crash safety isn't bad, but
> driver's ed, compliance with rules of the road, and even the rules
> themselves have been let slip in the intervening years. I blame Nader,
> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
Yeah, that's a common rant.
Peter Cole
They were/are heroes.
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >> I blame Nader,
> >> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>
> >> nate
>
> >> --
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>
> They were/are heroes.
Heroes to stupidity?
The real heroes will be the ones that try to prevent accidents on our
deadly roads, not the ones that make the accidents "safer." Who will
stop the SUVs from freely intimidating others? Who will stop cell
phones? Who will make bicycles safe?
I bet not even Obama can do those things.
Peter Cole
> On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>> I blame Nader,
>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>>>> nate
>>>> --
>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>> They were/are heroes.
>
> Heroes to stupidity?
No, just American heroes.
Nate Nagel
Cite? I'm not aware of a one that is anything resembling common, save
for maybe the Smart, which is completely worthless (that is, it doesn't
get any better fuel mileage than a much larger/heavier car, so what's
the point?) AFAIK the next lightest commonly available vehicle in the
US is the Lotus Elise which is just under a ton, but only barely. (and
I want one very, very badly, but that's irrelevant.)
>
> "safety" is usually exclusively defined as occupant safety in a
> multi-vehicle crash. In those terms, bigger is always better, but those
> terms are somewhat arbitrary.
Indeed. My definition of safety is more something like "what's going to
reduce my chances of injury or death per mile driven" not "what's going
to protect me ***IF*** I am involved in a high speed crash" (an unlikely
event.)
>
>
>> At some point in the late 60s or early 70s we stopped concentrating on
>> getting people to cooperate and not bump into each other and put most
>> of the onus on the auto mfgrs. to provide a safe cocoon for all
>> occupants even in the worst crashes. Not that crash safety isn't bad,
>> but driver's ed, compliance with rules of the road, and even the rules
>> themselves have been let slip in the intervening years. I blame
>> Nader, Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>
> Yeah, that's a common rant.
Probably because there's a lot of truth behind it. Claybrook (in her
capacity as head of NHTSA) in particular is on record as stating
something along the lines of it was easier to force manufacturers to
install passive safety systems than rely on drivers to use seatbelts or
something like that. Basically putting all the responsibility for the
safety of motorists on the manufacturers, not the actual drivers where
it belongs. Too lazy to find the exact quote, but it shouldn't be too
hard to find.
Of course, all the safety "features" in the world won't compensate for a
loose nut behind the wheel, but we're loath to address *that* because
it's politically unpopular to call shitty drivers shitty drivers.
Nate Nagel
No, Claybrook in particular is incompetent and like many incompetent
people has a grossly overestimated self-evaluation of her competence..
That woman was grossly unqualified to work for NHTSA much less run it.
She is the one person MOST responsible for keeping our streets and
highways from being as safe as they could be by her incompetent
mismanagement. She had NO qualifications to be working in the position
that she held; her background was entirely in law and "consumer
protection" lobbying and she had no knowledge whatsoever of established
auto safety theory, engineering, practice, etc.
Please do some research on her tenure at NHTSA before you make idiotic,
asinine statements like that.
Nader did do some good initially, but he has only become nuttier with
time, and if it weren't for his support and guidance, we wouldn't have
ever had Claybrook, so you can blame him for that.
Both have consistently held industry responsible for practically
everything bad that happens in or near an automobile and held individual
road users essentially blameless. Instead we should be encouraging
personal responsibility, but I realize that that is unpopular.
Nate Nagel
Holy shiite, a post from CB that actually makes sense?
Nate Nagel
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>>> I blame Nader,
>>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>>>>> nate
>>>>> --
>>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
>>>>> reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>>> They were/are heroes.
>>
>> Heroes to stupidity?
>
> No, just American heroes.
If by "American" you mean in a mouth-breathing,
least-common-denominator, "ugly American" stereotypical sense.
Tom Sherman °_°
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>>> I blame Nader,
>>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>>>>> nate
>>>>> --
>>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
>>>>> reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hide quoted text -
>>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>>> They were/are heroes.
>>
>> Heroes to stupidity?
>>
>> The real heroes will be the ones that try to prevent accidents on our
>> deadly roads, not the ones that make the accidents "safer." Who will
>> stop the SUVs from freely intimidating others? Who will stop cell
>> phones? Who will make bicycles safe?
>>
>> I bet not even Obama can do those things.
>
> Holy shiite, a post from CB that actually makes sense?
>
probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his term(s).
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
matter." - Johann Hari
Nate Nagel
I was more responding to the first sentence and less to the last.
Tom Sherman °_°
medicals and a CDL, keep DOT log books, do DOT inspections before
driving, and be subject to the driving hours restrictions of CDL
holders. You want to drive a truck, then act like a real truck driver.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Jan 2, 11:57 am, Ron Ruff <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 1, 9:28 pm, Ron Wallenfang <rwallenf...@wi.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> But living in Milwaukee, you ought to know that there's more than
>>> politics standing in the way of mass bicycle commuting, such as cold,
>>> rain, snow and ice, obesity and other symptoms of poor physical
>>> fitness - even heat sometimes.
>> Always it is either a bicycle... or a big car... nothing in between.
>> We can easily (cheaply) make small enclosed electric vehicles that
>> weigh ~500lbs haul two people at 50mph with a 40mi range... and be
>> much more comfortable than a bike in inclimate weather, while using
>> about 5% of the energy of your typical SUV. Plenty or other benefits,
>> like no more gridlock or parking problems... but we must *first* make
>> the roads safe for small vehicles (and bikes!) by restricting the use
>> of large vehicles.
>
> "[r]estricting the use of large vehicles" how?? The prototypical
> "large vehicle" is the semi, and they are the lifeblood of the
> economy, although I often refer to them with less flattering terms.
>
days, they just don't hand out commercial driver's licenses.
> Although I bicycled 16,780 miles in 2009, and 298,613 since I started
> keeping daily records in 1993, I may have to identify myself as a
> villain. My wife and I have 6 children, which required a large
> vehicle, plain and simple. The last of them - a 2001 Dodge Gran
> Caravan - we still have, though it doesn't get much exercise any
> more. But when I want to take a group to a Packer game and tailgate,
> that's the way. It's also good for hauling loads of compost from the
> recycling center to my garden.
>
Maybe we need child birthing credits - you want more than one child, you
pay the price. Cycling in the US would be much nicer if there were only
200M people instead of 300M.
> My wife drives a 2007 Buick Rendevous. Now that kids are scattered to
> the four winds - Minneapolis, Nashville and New York - we drive out to
> see them, and we do it in comfort, often with side trips, and with my
> bike on the back to feed my obsession. My sister is in north Florida;
> we drive there too.
>
> Maybe it was better in the old days. My mother was one of 7 children;
> six lived within 20 miles of each other; and the 7th 90 miles a day.
> Milwaukee - 200 miles away - was a long trip. Air travel was out of
> the question. Maybe poverty will force a return to those days. But
> until it happens......
>
A good thing if needless air travel goes away - a luxury 90% of the
people of the world can not afford anyway.
> I believe in conservation and stewardship of our natural and other
> resources. I reject waste and conspicuous consumption. But this is a
> matter of proportion - a value that has to be weighed with other
> values. We were privileged to have all 6 kids and our 5 grandchildren
> at home this Christmas. Did that travel use some energy? Yes. Was
> it worth it? Absolutely!!!
To your family, or the world ecosystem?
Of course, they could have made the trip in the same time on high-speed
rail with much lower environmental impact if US was not so
short-sighted. And a government run high-speed rail system would require
less funding than government run airports, air traffic control, TSA
goons, de facto fuel subsidies, etc. that commercial aviation uses.
Ron Wallenfang
>
> - Show quoted text -
Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game; meanwhile I
may sic Ed Dolan on you.
AMuzi
We touched Claybrook last year.
Pete has willful denial and his opinion isn't going to change.
Let's move on.
--
Andrew Muzi
<www.yellowjersey.org/>
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
AMuzi
Will you also require them to eat meat and gravy on sliced
bread ("trucker plate")?
Jay Beattie
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > Peter Cole wrote:
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>> I blame Nader,
> >>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>
> >>>> nate
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
>
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
>
> >>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>
> >> They were/are heroes.
>
> > No, Claybrook in particular is incompetent and like many incompetent
> > people has a grossly overestimated self-evaluation of her competence..
> > That woman was grossly unqualified to work for NHTSA much less run it.
> > She is the one person MOST responsible for keeping our streets and
> > highways from being as safe as they could be by her incompetent
> > mismanagement. She had NO qualifications to be working in the position
> > that she held; her background was entirely in law and "consumer
> > protection" lobbying and she had no knowledge whatsoever of established
> > auto safety theory, engineering, practice, etc.
>
> > Please do some research on her tenure at NHTSA before you make idiotic,
> > asinine statements like that.
>
> > Nader did do some good initially, but he has only become nuttier with
> > time, and if it weren't for his support and guidance, we wouldn't have
> > ever had Claybrook, so you can blame him for that.
>
> > Both have consistently held industry responsible for practically
> > everything bad that happens in or near an automobile and held individual
> > road users essentially blameless. Instead we should be encouraging
> > personal responsibility, but I realize that that is unpopular.
>
> We touched Claybrook last year.
> Pete has willful denial and his opinion isn't going to change.
> Let's move on.
Plus, NHTSA has nothing to do with enforcing road safety, i.e.,
complaince with traffic laws. That is handled at the state and local
level. They are not a planning agency; they have nothing to do with
local roadway construction or design (although design may be driven by
NHTSA safety research). I don't get the animosity. If you're streets
are dangerous, then you need to talk to your local government -- or
man-up, or do something besides whining about federal agencies that
have no regulatory authority over your daily commute. My commute has
gotten more dangerous due to increased bicycle traffic. I think
bicyclists should be licensed, registered and generally removed to
District 9 -- except for me. Take the busses and pick-ups, too. I vant
to be alone! -- Jay Beattie
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> There are plenty of cars in the 3/4 ton class being built around the
>> world today, even driven in the US.
>
> Cite? I'm not aware of a one that is anything resembling common, save
> for maybe the Smart,
See "Kei cars", e.g. Daihatsu Move (1,587 lb), similar models in China &
India.
> My definition of safety is more something like "what's going to
> reduce my chances of injury or death per mile driven"
Of course it is.
>> Yeah, that's a common rant.
>
> Probably because there's a lot of truth behind it.
I don't think so. It's like so many knee-jerk right-wing diatribes, just
a philosophical position statement, devoid of fact.
Of course I'd be more than happy to hear your candidates for heroes who
dedicated their lives to automobile safety. But of course your position
is that safety improvements are only encroachments on freedom and
corporations don't require oversight since their intentions are always good.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
>>>> I blame Nader,
>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
>>>>
>>>> nate
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
>>>> reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
>>
>> They were/are heroes.
>
> No, Claybrook in particular is incompetent and like many incompetent
> people has a grossly overestimated self-evaluation of her competence..
> That woman was grossly unqualified to work for NHTSA much less run it.
> She is the one person MOST responsible for keeping our streets and
> highways from being as safe as they could be by her incompetent
> mismanagement. She had NO qualifications to be working in the position
> that she held; her background was entirely in law and "consumer
> protection" lobbying and she had no knowledge whatsoever of established
> auto safety theory, engineering, practice, etc.
>
> Please do some research on her tenure at NHTSA before you make idiotic,
> asinine statements like that.
Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years, and
she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts find your
demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep spouting this
crap?
Nate Nagel
It's not that the streets are dangerous, it's that a bunch of BS has
been shoved down our throats.
55 MPH NMSL - yup, St. Joan's baby. Originally introduced as a fuel
conservation measure, Claybrook repurposed it as a safety initiative
despite no evidence that it was a) obeyed b) safety-positive. She went
so far as to go on record as stating that "keep right except to pass"
should be repealed so that people could drive slowly in the left lane to
slow down faster traffic. Great idea. This was also the introduction
of the concept that speed was the number one hazard on the roads, which
is obviously not the case, and yet everyone still pays lip service to
this asinine concept.
Airbags, and those awful "mouse" seatbelts - also Claybrook's babies. I
can't legally use a far safer 5-point harness in my street car, but I
have to either keep driving 20 year old cars or else put up with the
MANDATORY passive restraints.
Constant resistance to superior E-code headlights, due to reasons
unknown to me. (the official line is that they don't illuminate
overhead signs, which is complete BS.) Acceptance of completely
defective headlamp designs, e.g. Ford trucks of a couple generations
back (quite possibly the most glaring headlights ever.)
On the same subject, but not St. Joan's fault (although it wouldn't
surprise me to find out she was involved) are the awful DRL
implementations that we have - high beams? Directional signals? How
can these NOT be glaring or confusing to other road users? Another
bonehead NHTSA decision.
those are just my top peeves, of which we still have to deal with the
aftermath today. There's plenty more examples of crack-brained "safety"
initiatives.
We ought to just subcontract everything to deal with roads, automobiles,
and safety to the Germans and be done with it. Our current laws and
regulations are so screwed up it'll take several decades to undo all the
damage that's been done, even if there's a will to do so.
Nate Nagel
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> There are plenty of cars in the 3/4 ton class being built around the
>>> world today, even driven in the US.
>>
>> Cite? I'm not aware of a one that is anything resembling common, save
>> for maybe the Smart,
>
> See "Kei cars", e.g. Daihatsu Move (1,587 lb), similar models in China &
> India.
You said "even driven in the US." Those are not available in the US.
>
> > My definition of safety is more something like "what's going to
>> reduce my chances of injury or death per mile driven"
>
> Of course it is.
>
>
>>> Yeah, that's a common rant.
>>
>> Probably because there's a lot of truth behind it.
>
> I don't think so. It's like so many knee-jerk right-wing diatribes, just
> a philosophical position statement, devoid of fact.
>
> Of course I'd be more than happy to hear your candidates for heroes who
> dedicated their lives to automobile safety. But of course your position
> is that safety improvements are only encroachments on freedom and
> corporations don't require oversight since their intentions are always
> good.
Peter, you usually sound like an intelligent person, but I can't tell if
you're serious or trolling. I don't honestly think you're that stupid.
But your post above is so spectacularly devoid of intelligent thought
that I can't even begin to respond to it.
AMuzi
Well, I still bitch about Johnson and Nixon too.
Nate Nagel
It ain't crap. She introduced that left-wing "we have to protect the
poor stupid consumers because they're too dumb to protect themselves"
mindset that still persists in government and especially NHTSA today.
To make matters worse, the initiatives that she pushed didn't improve
safety at all - but they DID make vehicles more expensive, heavier, less
efficient, but not a whole lot safer. NHTSA has been broken ever since
her tenure there and is still making the same poor decisions for the
same poor reasons today. see my previous post for examples.
I want a government agency that actually acts on statistics and
engineering criteria, not feel-good, knee-jerk liberalism of the worst kind.
Bill Sornson
> I want a government agency that actually acts on statistics and
> engineering criteria, not feel-good, knee-jerk liberalism of the
> worst kind.
Good luck with that.
BS (not)
AMuzi
Nate Nagel wrote:
> I want a government agency that actually acts on statistics and
> engineering criteria, not feel-good, knee-jerk liberalism of the worst
> kind.
Your (our) opinions are not at all shared AND we don't call
those shots.
Really. This can't be resolved here, let's move on.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>> There are plenty of cars in the 3/4 ton class being built around the
>>>> world today, even driven in the US.
>>>
>>> Cite? I'm not aware of a one that is anything resembling common,
>>> save for maybe the Smart,
>>
>> See "Kei cars", e.g. Daihatsu Move (1,587 lb), similar models in China
>> & India.
>
> You said "even driven in the US." Those are not available in the US.
Obviously, but Smart cars are. The class is common around the world, and
there is no reason cars in that class can't be designed for the US
market. OK?
>
>>
>> > My definition of safety is more something like "what's going to
>>> reduce my chances of injury or death per mile driven"
>>
>> Of course it is.
>>
>>
>>>> Yeah, that's a common rant.
>>>
>>> Probably because there's a lot of truth behind it.
>>
>> I don't think so. It's like so many knee-jerk right-wing diatribes,
>> just a philosophical position statement, devoid of fact.
>>
>> Of course I'd be more than happy to hear your candidates for heroes
>> who dedicated their lives to automobile safety. But of course your
>> position is that safety improvements are only encroachments on freedom
>> and corporations don't require oversight since their intentions are
>> always good.
>
> Peter, you usually sound like an intelligent person, but I can't tell if
> you're serious or trolling. I don't honestly think you're that stupid.
> But your post above is so spectacularly devoid of intelligent thought
> that I can't even begin to respond to it.
I can't believe that anyone literate, never mind smart, would go off on
such idiotic rants at the drop of a hat. Please, spare us all the
talking points, we know the radio stations.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
>> and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts find
>> your demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep
>> spouting this crap?
>
> It ain't crap. She introduced that left-wing "we have to protect the
> poor stupid consumers because they're too dumb to protect themselves"
> mindset that still persists in government and especially NHTSA today. To
> make matters worse, the initiatives that she pushed didn't improve
> safety at all - but they DID make vehicles more expensive, heavier, less
> efficient, but not a whole lot safer. NHTSA has been broken ever since
> her tenure there and is still making the same poor decisions for the
> same poor reasons today. see my previous post for examples.
Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you?
Frankly, your argument is nuts.
Nate Nagel
You're the one arguing that a) kei-class cars are practical in the US
and b) Joan Claybrook was a hero. The two concepts are mutually
exclusive. If it *weren't* for Claybrook, we *might* have good,
inexpensive, small, economical cars here.
Or you can keep thinking that I'm nuts, but that won't make you any less
mistaken.
Andrew Price
>Will you also require them to eat meat and gravy on sliced
>bread ("trucker plate")?
Excuse me while I throw up ...
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
>> and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts find
>> your demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep
>> spouting this crap?
>
> Well, I still bitch about Johnson and Nixon too.
Some r-w'ers still bitch about FDR, too, but most of them have died off.
I'd stop bitching about Cheney if he'd just go away.
Bitching about Bush is no fun, nobody will defend him.
Peter Cole
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>> Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
>>>> and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts
>>>> find your demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep
>>>> spouting this crap?
>>>
>>> It ain't crap. She introduced that left-wing "we have to protect the
>>> poor stupid consumers because they're too dumb to protect themselves"
>>> mindset that still persists in government and especially NHTSA today.
>>> To make matters worse, the initiatives that she pushed didn't improve
>>> safety at all - but they DID make vehicles more expensive, heavier,
>>> less efficient, but not a whole lot safer. NHTSA has been broken
>>> ever since her tenure there and is still making the same poor
>>> decisions for the same poor reasons today. see my previous post for
>>> examples.
>>
>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
>> and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you?
>>
>> Frankly, your argument is nuts.
>
> You're the one arguing that a) kei-class cars are practical in the US
> and b) Joan Claybrook was a hero. The two concepts are mutually
> exclusive. If it *weren't* for Claybrook, we *might* have good,
> inexpensive, small, economical cars here.
Like I said, nuts.
AMuzi
>>> Er, you do realize she's been out of government for almost 30 years,
>>> and she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts
>>> find your demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep
>>> spouting this crap?
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Well, I still bitch about Johnson and Nixon too.
Peter Cole wrote:
> Some r-w'ers still bitch about FDR, too, but most of them have died off.
> I'd stop bitching about Cheney if he'd just go away.
> Bitching about Bush is no fun, nobody will defend him.
I will if you write me off RBT.
I can't imagine we could resolve anything in this venue or
even make it entertaining. Sorta like Browner. Oh, and I
never stop bitching about FDR but that's nearly trite.
Nate Nagel
You'd be surprised how many "W" stickers I still see on bumpers every
day. And I actually agree with you re: Bush and Cheney.
Peter Cole
No offense, but I'm as pessimistic as you about changing minds. I just
wish you guys could refrain from introducing politics into bike related
threads. If somebody insults the group with the generic wing-nut talking
point I'm gonna reject it, but I'm not interested in giving it much time.
Peter Cole
I love Texans, but I don't think I could live there for over a month.
Bill Sornson
>> I'd stop bitching about Cheney if he'd just go away.
Yeah, how dare a former VP criticize a sitting President during a time of
war:
http://www.entertonement.com/clips/mvrjpyzwdt--Betrayed-this-coutnryAl-Gore-
Tom Sherman °_°
> -snip much-
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> I want a government agency that actually acts on statistics and
>> engineering criteria, not feel-good, knee-jerk liberalism of the worst
>> kind.
>
> Your (our) opinions are not at all shared AND we don't call those shots.
>
> Really. This can't be resolved here, let's move on.
>
Tom Sherman °_°
Tom Sherman °_°
> [...]
> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
Nate Nagel
Damn, now I'm hungry. Although it's more appropriate for a 3AM snack.
Gravy on the fries, too, please, and black coffee.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
news:hhqliu$d56$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> Obama is merely an overseer for the real rulers of the country. He
> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his
> term(s).
What liberals fear is what they themselves would like to do. Is Tom Sherman
a potential assassin?
> "A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
> matter." - Johann Hari
What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They beat
up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love affair with
Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
>> [...]
>> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
>
> Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
>
>> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
>
> Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
Mr. Sherman has ever proven himself wrongheaded on matters of politics. He
also is an idiot on how this country should conduct its foreign affairs. I
think his worse misstep ever was equating Palestinian terrorists with the
Israeli military. But maybe Muslim terrorists will soon be showing up in
this country and he can gain a clearer understanding of the price of liberal
idiocy.
Ron Wallenfang
Ron Wallenfang
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
I think Packer and Packers are used interchangeably, but the official
name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.
Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
around the developed world.
As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
example.
TheTibetanMonkey
> "delboy" <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> news:a547d631-6f11-4bca...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
> On 2 Jan, 11:04, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "DougC" <dcim...@norcom2000.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:XMt%m.88$nR...@newsfe01.iad...
>
> > > On 1/1/2010 2:26 PM, Tom Sherman °_° wrote:
> > >> Why you ask? As the plutocracy consolidates their power and wealth, the
> > >> existing and new working poor will not be able to afford private
> > >> motorized transportation. Therefore, fewer motor vehicles on the road,
> > >> and more bicycles ridden for transportation by the new class of
> > >> de-facto
> > >> serfs.
>
> > > So you mean that everywhere will be as nice to ride as Detroit is?
>
> > Doug, although I know you are an idiot from previous posts, you also
> > approach sheer genius at times. Indeed, cycling is a proclivity of an
> > elite,
> > but one not based on income. Americans will never resort to cycling to get
> > around. If they are as poor as church mice, they will either walk or take
> > public transportation.
>
> > Cycling only becomes a mass transportation thing in a society where it is
> > culturally ingrained such as it was in China of recent decades. The
> > socialist-communist serfs of the former Soviet Union never took to cycling
> > because it was not in their culture to do so and it most certainly is not
> > in
> > the American culture ever to resort to cycling no matter how dire the
> > circumstances. Only a cultural elite ever gets into cycling. Very funny
> > that
> > Mr. Sherman does not realize this very elementary fact of life.
> >> I get the impression that most Yanks will only travel in great big gas-
>
> guzzling V8 SUVs, even if it's only to go 100 yards down the road to
> the nearest Burger Bar. That is why they do so much damage to the
> planet and why so many of them are grossly overweight!
>
> That is substantially correct. But if the Europeans had more elbow room they
> would not be any different.
I beg to disagree. The SUV is a vehicle for the brutish and
uneducated.
Now the ghetto boys all want them, but not the kids going to college.
TheTibetanMonkey
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>> I blame Nader,
> >>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
> >>>> --
> >>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hidequoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
> >> They were/are heroes.
>
>
> No, just American heroes.
Folk heroes. Now tell us how they change the landscape of the roads.
The seem to be getting worse all the time, and road safety in NOT even
an issue.
TheTibetanMonkey
> Probably because there's a lot of truth behind it. Claybrook (in her
> capacity as head of NHTSA) in particular is on record as stating
> something along the lines of it was easier to force manufacturers to
> install passive safety systems than rely on drivers to use seatbelts or
> something like that. Basically putting all the responsibility for the
> safety of motorists on the manufacturers, not the actual drivers where
> it belongs. Too lazy to find the exact quote, but it shouldn't be too
> hard to find.
>
> Of course, all the safety "features" in the world won't compensate for a
> loose nut behind the wheel, but we're loath to address *that* because
> it's politically unpopular to call shitty drivers shitty drivers.
That's exactly my point. Thank you.
Those who wanted to safe had money to burn and bought SUVs. Too bad if
you couldn't afford one or be part of the shit.
TheTibetanMonkey
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>> I blame Nader,
> >>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
> >>>> nate
> >>>> --
> >>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hidequoted text -
> >>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
> >> They were/are heroes.
>
> > Heroes to stupidity?
>
> > deadly roads, not the ones that make the accidents "safer." Who will
> > stop the SUVs from freely intimidating others? Who will stop cell
> > phones? Who will make bicycles safe?
>
> > I bet not even Obama can do those things.
>
> Holy shiite, a post from CB that actually makes sense?
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
We know that. Everybody knows that. He won't mess with the big issues
that would make ordinary Americans uncomfortable.
He wants to be a hero, but not a superhero and be dead, at least
politically. ;)
TheTibetanMonkey
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
> > TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >> On Jan 3, 10:28 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>>> I blame Nader,
> >>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
> >>>>> nate
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
> >>>>> reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel-Hidequoted text -
> >>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> Were they stupid or just plain puppets?
> >>> They were/are heroes.
>
> >> Heroes to stupidity?
>
> >> The real heroes will be the ones that try to prevent accidents on our
> >> deadly roads, not the ones that make the accidents "safer." Who will
> >> stop the SUVs from freely intimidating others? Who will stop cell
> >> phones? Who will make bicycles safe?
>
> >> I bet not even Obama can do those things.
>
> > Holy shiite, a post from CB that actually makes sense?
>
> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his term(s).
>
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
>
> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
>
> - Show quoted text -
We are all praying for that, even if we don't believe, right?
TheTibetanMonkey
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Ron Ruff wrote:
> > On Jan 2, 1:42 pm, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> A 500 lb 2-seater might be a reach without relaxing
> >> some safety rules, but 1,000 lb shouldn't be too difficult. The
> >> Messerschmitt KR200 was a 500 lb 2-seater in the 1950's. For the spec
> >> above, current SOA for single passenger street legal electrics seems
> >> around 1300 lb (Myers NMG).
>
> > This is fairly close to what I'm talking about :http://
> >www.unisa.edu.au/solarcar/trev/
>
> > It weighs 660lbs but also is made to go 75mph and has a 100mi range.
> > For city travel this is much more than necessary, and I think 500lb is
> > easily doable.
>
> > The biggest safety hazard by far is all these 3+ ton behemoths... that
> > is why they *must* be restricted to only certain roads and lanes. If
> > we make travel in small vehicles safe, and also point out the
> > benefits, I doubt there will be much in the way of sane resistance.
>
> I think the drivers of 2+ ton vehicles should be required to have DOT
> medicals and a CDL, keep DOT log books, do DOT inspections before
> driving, and be subject to the driving hours restrictions of CDL
> holders. You want to drive a truck, then act like a real truck driver.
>
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, that will the first decree signed by me, if I were comandante
anywhere.
TheTibetanMonkey
> Jay Beattie wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 10:54 am, AMuzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>> Peter Cole wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 2, 1:07 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> I blame Nader,
> >>>>>> Claybrook, et. al. for their one sided view of "safety."
> >>>>>> nate
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> replace "roosters" with "cox" to
> >>>>>> - Show quoted text -
> >>>> They were/are heroes.
> >>> people has a grossly overestimated self-evaluation of her competence..
> >>> That woman was grossly unqualified to work for NHTSA much less run it.
> >>> She is the one person MOST responsible for keeping our streets and
> >>> highways from being as safe as they could be by her incompetent
> >>> mismanagement. She had NO qualifications to be working in the position
> >>> that she held; her background was entirely in law and "consumer
> >>> protection" lobbying and she had no knowledge whatsoever of established
> >>> auto safety theory, engineering, practice, etc.
> >>> Please do some research on her tenure at NHTSA before you make idiotic,
> >>> asinine statements like that.
> >>> Nader did do some good initially, but he has only become nuttier with
> >>> time, and if it weren't for his support and guidance, we wouldn't have
> >>> ever had Claybrook, so you can blame him for that.
> >>> Both have consistently held industry responsible for practically
> >>> everything bad that happens in or near an automobile and held individual
> >>> road users essentially blameless. Instead we should be encouraging
> >>> personal responsibility, but I realize that that is unpopular.
> >> We touched Claybrook last year.
> >> Pete has willful denial and his opinion isn't going to change.
> >> Let's move on.
>
> > Plus, NHTSA has nothing to do with enforcing road safety, i.e.,
> > complaince with traffic laws. That is handled at the state and local
> > level. They are not a planning agency; they have nothing to do with
> > local roadway construction or design (although design may be driven by
> > NHTSA safety research). I don't get the animosity. If you're streets
> > are dangerous, then you need to talk to your local government -- or
> > man-up, or do something besides whining about federal agencies that
> > have no regulatory authority over your daily commute. My commute has
> > gotten more dangerous due to increased bicycle traffic. I think
> > bicyclists should be licensed, registered and generally removed to
> > District 9 -- except for me. Take the busses and pick-ups, too. I vant
> > to be alone! -- Jay Beattie
>
> It's not that the streets are dangerous, it's that a bunch of BS has
> been shoved down our throats.
>
> 55 MPH NMSL - yup, St. Joan's baby. Originally introduced as a fuel
> conservation measure, Claybrook repurposed it as a safety initiative
> despite no evidence that it was a) obeyed b) safety-positive. She went
> so far as to go on record as stating that "keep right except to pass"
> should be repealed so that people could drive slowly in the left lane to
> slow down faster traffic. Great idea. This was also the introduction
> of the concept that speed was the number one hazard on the roads, which
> is obviously not the case, and yet everyone still pays lip service to
> this asinine concept.
>
> Airbags, and those awful "mouse" seatbelts - also Claybrook's babies. I
> can't legally use a far safer 5-point harness in my street car, but I
> have to either keep driving 20 year old cars or else put up with the
> MANDATORY passive restraints.
>
> Constant resistance to superior E-code headlights, due to reasons
> unknown to me. (the official line is that they don't illuminate
> overhead signs, which is complete BS.) Acceptance of completely
> defective headlamp designs, e.g. Ford trucks of a couple generations
> back (quite possibly the most glaring headlights ever.)
>
> On the same subject, but not St. Joan's fault (although it wouldn't
> surprise me to find out she was involved) are the awful DRL
> implementations that we have - high beams? Directional signals? How
> can these NOT be glaring or confusing to other road users? Another
> bonehead NHTSA decision.
>
> those are just my top peeves, of which we still have to deal with the
> aftermath today. There's plenty more examples of crack-brained "safety"
> initiatives.
>
> We ought to just subcontract everything to deal with roads, automobiles,
> and safety to the Germans and be done with it. Our current laws and
> regulations are so screwed up it'll take several decades to undo all the
> damage that's been done, even if there's a will to do so.
>
> nate
Totally agree. She's another stupid woman in saying that. Of course,
many men in America are stupid too, but the Germans are smarter about
that. So I think it's a cultural issue.
LANE DISCIPLINE IS THE MAJOR BENEFIT THAT COULD BE BROUGHT TO AMERICAN
CHAOTIC ROADS.
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hhqliu$d56$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> [...]
>> Obama is merely an overseer for the real rulers of the country. He
>> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his
>> term(s).
>
> What liberals fear is what they themselves would like to do. Is Tom Sherman
> a potential assassin?
>
>> "A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
>> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
>> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
>> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
>> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
>> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
>> matter." - Johann Hari
>
> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They beat
> up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love affair with
> Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>
mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
would be to resign.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"Every American government since Reagan has essentially been
consumed with the task of denuding the middle and working
classes of their paltry share of the national pie, in order to
deliver those dollars into the hands of wealthy political
benefactors." - David Michael Green
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
OK, let's be honest and frank about it: THERE'S NO HOPE FOR AMERICA...
WE NEED A REVOLUTION --somewhere. ;)
We better start praying and trying for a revolution somewhere, where
things that need to be done are done. Chavez is a clown following the
steps of the original clown, Castro. He brought bicycles to Cuba, but
much later in the process, and people paid a price. No way!
So the hope is some new comandante is not a caudillo, but more like
the European royalty. The European elites have learned to spread the
wealth, while the American ones are trying to isolate themselves in
Gated Communities and ignore the jungle. You feel unsafe in a bike? Go
and buy a real SUV and forget about dreams...
Well, my breakfast is getting cold, but I leave you dreaming with a
revolution. ;)
Edward Dolan
"TheTibetanMonkey" <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:269dadbd-1fb0-4244...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...[...]
> That is substantially correct. But if the Europeans had more elbow room
> they
> would not be any different.
>> I beg to disagree. The SUV is a vehicle for the brutish and
uneducated.
>> Now the ghetto boys all want them, but not the kids going to college.
It is all a question of what works. You do not see many SUVs in Europe
because of the high taxes on gasoline and also because the streets are often
not wide enough for them. Many European villages do not even have streets
wide enough for a typical American sized car.
Kids going to college do not need any kind of car. They can walk, take
public transportation or ride a bicycle.
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>
> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a mixture
> of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing progressive
> about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what was promised by
> candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him would be to
> resign.
Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he had
any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are notoriously
lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better watch himself
as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays loose with
American security.
Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he will
be just a one term president.
Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
Ron Ruff
> "[r]estricting the use of large vehicles" how?? The prototypical
> "large vehicle" is the semi, and they are the lifeblood of the
> economy, although I often refer to them with less flattering terms.
On multi-lane roads they will be restricted to right lanes only and
right turns only... and a speed limit slightly less than the rest of
traffic. That at least will be a start. *Any* vehicle above the size
limit will be subject to the same restrictions. Many urban routes will
be off limits to large vehicles altogether.
> I may have to identify myself as a
> villain. My wife and I have 6 children, which required a large
> vehicle, plain and simple.
I suppose most people will have or have access to a vehicle large
enough to haul their families, take long trips, haul stuff form the
store, etc. No problem there. But if we want to change the commuting
situation we have to stop using these monsters for the great majority
of transportation which involves only one person over short
distances.
Ozark Bicycle
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >news:hhqliu$d56$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> > [...]
> >> Obama is merely an overseer for the real rulers of the country. He
> >> probably wants himself and his family to be alive at the end of his
> >> term(s).
>
> > What liberals fear is what they themselves would like to do. Is Tom Sherman
> > a potential assassin?
>
> >> "A large part of the problem is the atrocious US broadcast
> >> media. The TV news is one lengthy blowjob for the powerful,
> >> seeing everything from the perspective of the rich, and
> >> ridiculing arguments for progress. It serves its owners and
> >> its advertisers by poisoning every political debate with
> >> death-panel distractions and silence for the things that
> >> matter." - Johann Hari
>
> > What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They beat
> > up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love affair with
> > Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>
> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a
> mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
> progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
> was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
> would be to resign.
Surely you don't actually believe the da-da uttered by a candidate
during an election campaign!
As a reminder:
*1968: Nixon promised he had a "secret plan" to end the Viet Nam war.
*1980: Reagan promised to balance the budget and eliminate the Federal
deficit.
Did you think that only Republicans lie???
Mark J.
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Some r-w'ers still bitch about FDR, too, but most of them have died off.
>
Just so long as you don't "write off RBT." Please (don't). We'd miss
you. :(
Mark J.
(Can we talk about bikes now?)
Tom Sherman °_°
> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> news:hhsd86$hb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> [...]
>>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>>
>> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a mixture
>> of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing progressive
>> about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what was promised by
>> candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him would be to
>> resign.
>
> Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he had
> any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
But that would be against the corporate elite that rule the country.
> However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are notoriously
> lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better watch himself
> as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays loose with
> American security.
>
Oh Ed, now you are just being silly. Afghanistan has always been about
Central Asian natural gas reserves, not terrorism. Besides, things are
going so well:
<http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html>.
And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
> Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he will
> be just a one term president.
> Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
>
The USians that count want high unemployment. Low unemployment gives the
proletariat too much power - workers scared of unemployment are more
compliant. In addition, high unemployment aids military recruitment to
fight wars of imperial conquest. And there are always prisons for those
who complain too much.
<http://www.openleft.com/diary/16774/why-democrats-are-trying-to-commit-electoral-suicide>
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
(even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
Edward Dolan
"Peter Cole" <peter...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hhr5aa$drl$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> AMuzi wrote:
>> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>>> she only ran NHTSA for 4 years, don't you? Once you wing-nuts find your
>>> demons you never let go, do you? How can you possibly keep spouting this
>>> crap?
>>
>> Well, I still bitch about Johnson and Nixon too.
>
>
> I'd stop bitching about Cheney if he'd just go away.
>
> Bitching about Bush is no fun, nobody will defend him.
You obviously only read what you want to read. I have repeatedly proposed
that Cheney be put on Mount Rushmore and that a special monument be built on
the Mall in Washington D C to honor his greatness.
Bush, backed by Cheney, had the guts to take the war to the Muslim
terrorists. We shall see what the present gutless wonder resident in the
White House will do about the war.
Tom Sherman °_°
> On Jan 3, 6:57 pm, Tom Sherman �_�
> <twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Response coming after my bike ride and the Packer game;
>> Technically, should that not be "Packers' game"?
>>
>>> meanwhile I may sic Ed Dolan on you.
>> Despite his protests, Ed likes me. ;)
>>
>
> name is Packers, so I'll concede you that point.
>
> Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
> scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
> medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
> beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
> miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
> offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
> Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
> around the developed world.
>
course, removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the
funding problem.
> As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
> nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
> air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
> density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
> example.
It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that
are the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites
will likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the
"worthless eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with
their lives.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
- Ian Welsh
Tom Sherman °_°
There are lies, and damn lies.
--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
"To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
Ozark Bicycle
Weren't some statistics involved as well? ;-)
(FWIW, I still believe Obama was the better [i.e., best electable]
choice in the general election of 2008. I'm not as disappointed as
you, but I suspect my hopes were not as high.)
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
>> news:hhsd86$hb0$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> [...]
>>>> What a laugh the above is! The mass media is liberal to the core. They
>>>> beat up on Bush for 8 years and now they are having a slobbering love
>>>> affair with Obama no matter how inept he proves to be.
>>>>
>>> What Ed conveniently ignores is that Obama's policies have been a
>>> mixture of neo-con and neo-feudal. Very little liberal, and nothing
>>> progressive about them. President Obama's actions are so far from what
>>> was promised by candidate Obama, the only honorable course left for him
>>> would be to resign.
>>
>> Obama is not a communist like you, but he is still plenty liberal. If he
>> had any guts, he would insist on a public option for health care reform.
>
> But that would be against the corporate elite that rule the country.
Some corporate elites are against a public option, others are in favor of
it. The so-called Blue Dog Democrats do not exist. A Democrat is a Democrat
is a Democrat. Obama is a weak-kneed pussy if truth be told.
>> However, he did the right thing about Afghanistan. Democrats are
>> notoriously lax with regard to national security issues, so he had better
>> watch himself as we conservatives are ready to pounce on him if he plays
>> loose with American security.
>>
> Oh Ed, now you are just being silly. Afghanistan has always been about
> Central Asian natural gas reserves, not terrorism. Besides, things are
> going so well:
> <http://www.juancole.com/2010/01/serial-catastrophes-in-afghanistan.html>.
> And the whole "War on Terror" was obviously always about manipulating
> public opinion, not fighting terrorism.
Afghanistan belongs more to the subcontinent than Central Asia. What natural
gas would that be? The best thing that could happen that would convince you
that the war on terrorism is real is if some of them would show up in your
neighborhood and blow your dumb ass sky high!
>> Obama will now have to concentrate on getting the job numbers up or he
>> will be just a one term president.
>> Americans will not stand for high unemployment.
>>
> The USians that count want high unemployment. Low unemployment gives the
> proletariat too much power - workers scared of unemployment are more
> compliant. In addition, high unemployment aids military recruitment to
> fight wars of imperial conquest. And there are always prisons for those
> who complain too much.
> <http://www.openleft.com/diary/16774/why-democrats-are-trying-to-commit-electoral-suicide>
As always, you are so intent on looking behind the scenes that you miss the
main scene, which is that of politicians wanting to get reelected to office.
That depends on voters, not corporations. Prepare for a big turnover this
midterm election if the economy does not pick up.
> "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
The trouble with the above is that the elites only number in a few hundreds
of thousands, whereas everyone else numbers in the hundreds of millions.
Numbers count more in the end than the wealth of the few.
delboy
>
> It is all a question of what works. You do not see many SUVs in Europe
> because of the high taxes on gasoline and also because the streets are often
> not wide enough for them. Many European villages do not even have streets
> wide enough for a typical American sized car.
>
> Kids going to college do not need any kind of car. They can walk, take
> public transportation or ride a bicycle.
>
I agree about the high levels of motor fuel taxation issue. In the UK
motorists are just regarded as tax cows for the Government, who seem
to forget that motorists are also voters. We also have a 'green'
agenda where the owners of large cars have to pay much more in Vehicle
Excise Duty, and the owners of large SUVs have been made into social
pariahs.
However, we do have SUVs in the UK, and many of their owners live in
rural areas where they are often a necessity of life for off-road and
farming use. They do fit quite comfortably into our roads, so you must
have been watching too many ancient movies.
Our class warfare New Labour Government have a social mobility program
that means that children from poor areas have to attend schools in
richer areas and vice versa. Children therefore often have to travel
some distance to school, and so we have the phenomenom of the 'School
Run Mummies' (Scrummies) who drive their children to school by car or
SUV, which clogs up our roads in the morning and evening rush hours.
So much for the green agenda and joined up thinking!
DC
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
[...]
>> Look at my six kids as taxpayers helping to ameliorate the Ponzi
>> scheme our politicians have set up to finance social security,
>> medicare and other programs. The ever decreasing ratio of workers to
>> beneficiaries is a critical problem all over the first world, with its
>> miserably inadequate birthrates, and has moved quite a few nations to
>> offer benefits for having more children. Look in on the US Census
>> Bureau's International Data Base and check out total fertility rates
>> around the developed world.
>>
> Those problems will be fixed by increasing the retirement age. Of course,
> removing the regressive cap on the FICA tax would solve the funding
> problem.
I think the retirement age is already at the maximum. Old folks just want to
sleep all day. And why shouldn't the working class pay for their social
security. Not everything in life can be progressive like the income tax.
>> As for world ecology, it is precisely the prosperous first world
>> nations that have had the financial wherewithal to move toward clean
>> air, clean water, bike paths and other such social goods. Population
>> density is good for bike riding; consider northwestern Europe as an
>> example.
>
> It is also the overconsumption of resources by the "first world" that are
> the cause of the ongoing ecological disasters. Of course, the elites will
> likely be able to buy their way out of the crisis, while the "worthless
> eaters" (thank you Henry Kissinger) will pay the price with their lives.
The third world can't wait to become exactly like us. In fact, it may well
be that China and India will do the world in, not the US or Europe.
> "The last 35 years may have been a bad time to be an ordinary
> American, but the elite has seen their wealth and income soar
> to levels even greater than the gilded age. The rich, in
> America, have never, ever, been as rich as they are now."
> - Ian Welsh
And what do the rich do with their extra wealth? They spend millions on
second and third homes. How stupid can you get!
Edward Dolan
"Tom Sherman �_�" <twsherm...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote in message
[...]
> "To the elites, ordinary Americans are pretty much parasites.
> It's not the bankers, with their multi-trillion dollar bailouts
> who are the problem, it's old people with their Social Security
> and Medicare. The elites made it. They are rich and powerful.
> They believe that their success is due entirely to themselves
> (even if they inherited the money or position). If you didn't,
> then that means you don't deserve it." - Ian Welsh
The elites are as pitiful as everyone else. No one makes it on their own,
not even if you work like a dog all of your life. You make it because you
are part of a greater society. I suspect Tom Sherman is a middling success
in this country whereas in Afghanistan he would be next to nothing - unless
he has some warrior skills and likes to rob and murder people. Maybe he
could be a warlord in Central Asia and learn to love to kick ass.