Re: The Revolution Will Not be Motorized

[Edward Dolan]

"Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1185451051.423299.308700@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Jul 25, 7:03 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I saw Cheney mentioned (what he has to do with any of this is beyond me)
>>> and
>>> I saw that it said it was better in the 70's. No wonder you anti-car
>>> people
>>> are a bunch of marginalized freaks. You're LOONY, and if you weren't you
>>> could actually convince people to create bike lanes or trails or
>>> whatever,
>>> and it would be a good thing. Posting loony article does you no good.
>>
>> America joining the select group of democratic nations could do no
>> harm --actually it can do a lot of good. Nations the chose that path --
>> Holland, Germany, Scandinavia-- have both Healthcare for all and bike
>> lanes.
>
> You're a kook,why did you throw healthcare into this discussion? You
> wanted a kooky discussion on health care even though it's got nothing to
> do with the conversation. A minority of people in the US want bike lanes
> and most people are happy with their own personal health care. Period.

The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know of
anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every other
industrialized nation in the world.

The Repubs had better get on board on this issue or they are going to find
themselves a permanent minority party just like they did after the Great
Depression when Coolidge (or was it ****ing Hoover) thought the government
did not have any business providing jobs, let alone welfare.

What the hell do you think government is for if not to provided services to
people?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

PS. Get rid of your ****ing user name We here on these cycling newsgroups do
not give a damn how much you stink, although your messages are smelling up
the place I must admit.

PS2. Anyone seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko"? I would not mind seeing
this move myself since I am such a great critic of our present healthcare
system.

[rotten]

On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comca st.com...
> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know of
> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every other
> industrialized nation in the world.

Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

Your idiotically biased opinions do not speak for the entire country:

http://www.pollingreport.com/health3.htm

> The Repubs had better get on board on this issue or they are going to find
> themselves a permanent minority party just like they did after the Great
> Depression when Coolidge (or was it ****ing Hoover) thought the government
> did not have any business providing jobs, let alone welfare.

Learn your history, it was more complicated then that.

> What the hell do you think government is for if not to provided services to
> people?

It's purpose is to govern, kook.

> PS. Get rid of your ****ing user name We here on these cycling newsgroups do
> not give a damn how much you stink, although your messages are smelling up
> the place I must admit.

Choke on it.

> PS2. Anyone seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko"? I would not mind seeing
> this move myself since I am such a great critic of our present healthcare
> system.

Then buy a ticket and see it. Even a man of your limited means (and
abilities) should find that not too hard.

[Amy Blankenship]

"rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comca st.com...
>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know
>> of
>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
>> other
>> industrialized nation in the world.
>
> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

How often do polls reach people without phones?

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:kfmqi.7485$zJ1.5735@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
>
> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>> On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comca st.com...
>>> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't
>>> know of
>>> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy
>>> with
>>> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
>>> other
>>> industrialized nation in the world.
>>
>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Who doesn't have a phone? It's the best technique we have, and errors are
accounted for in the polls. That still doesn't reflect what occured in
Massachusetts and Oregon referendums.

[A Muzi]

>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
-snip the usual-

> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd
have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

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

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 9:16 am, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185499963.969424.217510@k79g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
>
> > On Jul 26, 2:05 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> >> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:LaGdnZrnS5KvAzXbnZ2dnUVZ_smnnZ2d@comca st.com...
> >> The healthcare system in this country is totally broken and I don't know
> >> of
> >> anyone (except the rich - always a very small minority) who is happy with
> >> it. What is needed is a single payer system like they have in every
> >> other
> >> industrialized nation in the world.
>
> > Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> > then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> > problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> > that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> How often do polls reach people without phones?

Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.

It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

[Mark]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.

Well, actually, the reported margins of error routinely line up with
those for 95% confidence intervals for simple random samples of the same
size.

In non-technical language, if they /hadn't/ taken phoneless people into
account, and used the most common margin-of-error estimate of random
sampling error, in most cases they'd get the _same_ margin of error as
is reported in the press.

I check this a lot, since I routinely use survey reporting in teaching
my statistics classes.

It's not that the pollsters aren't smart, they certainly know that the
phoneless (and the land-line-less) could be a cause of systematic error
in their polls. Further, most(!) pollsters have strong incentives to
accuracy (it's what they sell) - they don't want another embarrassment
like calling the '48 race for Dewey over Truman.

On the other hand, with the exception of election predictions, there are
very few opportunities for phone-only polls to be proven wrong because
of missing the phoneless (they will only be compared to other phone-only
polls, seemingly), and you can even argue away weak election predictions.

It's possible that the pros (Gallup, etc) have made estimates that show
that !currently! the land-line-less aren't systematically different
enough (or numerous enough) to make a difference. Or it could be that
the problem is being brushed under the rug because there's little to be
done about it.

Mark J.

You'd
> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.
>

[David L. Johnson]

A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.

Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
much more likely to support universal health insurance.

But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs
that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend
to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones
pollsters and politicians care about.

Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.

Polls are entertainment, not science.

--

David L. Johnson

Let's not escape into mathematics. Let's stay with reality.
-- Michael Crichton

[Amy Blankenship]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13ak5gee6p7868@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> -snip the usual-
>
>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have
> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely
to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.

[A Muzi]

>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>> -snip the usual-

>>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.

>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?

> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd have
>> to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.

Amy Blankenship wrote:
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those likely
> to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess not.

I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic
healthcare gripes.

(Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as
they currently threaten)
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Joe the Aroma]

"Amy Blankenship" <Amy_nospam@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote in message
news:HLoqi.6978$P32.5659@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
> not.

Who the hell doesn't have any sort of phone? It's not likely to be any
different than any other country:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/med_tel_mai_lin_in_use_percap-main-lines-use-per-capita

Don't quote me on this, but I don't think this includes cell phone either.

[Amy Blankenship]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13akd26o96c7t49@corp.supernews.com...
>>>>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>> -snip the usual-
>
>>>> "rotten" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
>>>>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
>>>>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
>>>>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
>>> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>>> Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
>>> margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies. You'd
>>> have to imply that unlisted persons as a group are different from listed
>>> persons as a group in a significant way to worry about it.
>
> Amy Blankenship wrote:
>> People who cannot afford a phone are less likely to be happy with their
>> healthcare, so, yes they are very significantly different from those
>> likely to be polled. I thought that would have been obvious, but I guess
>> not.
>
> I have no personal telephone, either land or cell. I do not fit the
> demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic healthcare
> gripes.
>
> (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street force
> a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as they
> currently threaten)

Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
you may want to consider using "us".

HTH;

Amy

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
> ...
> I have no personal telephone, either land or cell.

Haven't you spent all your waking hours in the shop every day since 1
April, 1971?

> I do not fit the
> demographic you had in mind I bet. Pointedly I have no systemic
> healthcare gripes.
>
> (Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
> force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we employers here, as
> they currently threaten).

There are some serious analysts who disagree with the presumption of
greater waste and cost.

With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
decisions.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[Brian Huntley]

On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
> you may want to consider using "us".


As in "Us, the people...."

The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 4:58 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185569402.040631.271220@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>
> >> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> >> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this
> >> newsgroup.
>
> > It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
> > lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
> > drivers do as they please? Please!
>
> So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"?
> You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.

That the poll among the well-to-do (those that can afford Lexus and
health insurance) are no evidence that we don't need health insurance.

You may ask THOSE WHO DON'T HAVE INSURANCE if you want to have some
credibility.

And the same applies to bikes. Ask the working class if they want to
have bike lanes to get to work. I bet you they go for it.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 26, 4:31 pm, Tony Raven <tra...@gotadsl.co.uk> wrote:

>
> "The effect of the cycle lane studied in this report is to reduce the
> amount of roadspace available to cyclists, and therefore makes
> conditions significantly worse for cyclists."
>
> Tony

They can't get any worse. People just don't go out and ride in
practical situations. The few that do ride sidewalks thereby
endangering pedestrians and themselves.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>
> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
drivers do as they please? Please!

[Amy Blankenship]

"Joe the Aroma" <bdjr76@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:-JOdnUc2jZmO0zfbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>>
>> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.

You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing
here, anyway?

[carlfogel@comcast.net]

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 13:40:26 -0700, Brian Huntley
<brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
><Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type of
>> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of the
>> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
>> you may want to consider using "us".
>
>
>As in "Us, the people...."
>
>The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

Dear Brian,

Sorry, but it's common to confuse subjective and objective case.
Whether we-employers or us-employers is correct depends on whether the
phrase is used as the subject or the object of a phrase or clause.

We, the people, are the proud subject of this sentence.

But this sentence refers to us, the people, as merely the object of a
preposition.

Thus we (not us) grammarians write that he (not him) must be goofing
on us (not on-we).

We like to sneer at whoever/whomever . . .

Sorry, not enough information yet--will whoever/whomever be the
subject or the object of the as-yet unknown subordinate clause?

.. . . at whoever is dumb enough to screw up niggling little points.
(he is dumb enough, subjective)

.. . . at whomever we can catch screwing up niggling little points.
(we can catch him, objective)

A dollar and such expertise (expressed with typical snottiness) is
usually enough to get a cup of hot coffee spilled on your lap by a
waiter who/whom . . .

.. . . who (not whom) is annoyed by us jerks.
Subjective case--he is annoyed, not him is annoyed.

.. . . who (not whom) we thought would not be annoyed by jerks like us.
Still subjective case--we thought (that) he, not him, would not be
annoyed.

.. . . whom (not who) we also failed to tip.
Objective case--we failed to tip him, not he.

Another deadly trap is the linking verb, such as to be, which restates
or renames the subject and therfore uses the subjective case.

Technically, you should reply, "It is I" when someone shouts "Who the
hell's at the door?" The predicate noun takes the objective form, so
only an ill-educated policeman will yell "It is me" before kicking the
door in.

Language, however, is an arbitrary collection of customs, not a
logical system resembling computer programming. The proper grammatical
reply "It is I" is never contracted to "It's I"--we say "It's me,
who'd ya think it was?"

Or perhaps _we_ should say, "It is we"? Aaargh! It's us!

Time to go for my ride before it starts raining, whatever "it" may
refer to.

Cheers,

Carl Fogel

[Amy Blankenship]

"Brian Huntley" <brian_huntley@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185568826.902070.40740@d55g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 27, 2:36 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
> <Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
>> Just for future reference, "on we" is probably good enough for the type
>> of
>> informal communications going on here, but when you are using a form of
>> the
>> plural pronoun in business communications as the object of a preposition,
>> you may want to consider using "us".
>
>
> As in "Us, the people...."
>
> The usage was "we employers." Sounds right to me.

Yes, it is sad that it sounds right to too many of us Americans.

Your problem is that you do not realize that the usage is:

We... do ordain and establish... "...the people of the United States of
America" is modifying we, but has nothing to do with why we was chosen over
us. We is the subject. The dependent clauses in between are also not
relevant to its selection.

For purposes of deciding what pronoun to use, the OP should have truncated
the sentence like this:

"Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on we."

When you do that, it becomes more clearly evident that it is incorrect and
should be:

"Although I will relocate my business if the whackos down the street
force a mandatory confiscatory wasteful program on us."

Hope this clarifies;

Amy

[Joe the Aroma]

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1185569402.040631.271220@22g2000hsm.googlegro ups.com...
> On Jul 27, 3:48 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>>
>> > Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>>
>> It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this
>> newsgroup.
>
> It's more rational than saying bike lanes are bad for bikes. Are car
> lanes bad for cars? Or should we erase all lines between lanes and let
> drivers do as they please? Please!

So what was your point, that they only poll "Lexus and Mercedes dealers"?
You're such a nut, you're hardly worth debating. But this is fun.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 6:08 pm, "Amy Blankenship"
<Amy_nos...@magnoliamultimedia.com> wrote:
> "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:-JOdnUc2jZmO0zfbnZ2dnUVZ_hqdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1185549505.573860.41320@l70g2000hse.googlegro ups.com...
> >>> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> >> Polls there at conducted at the Lexus and Mercedes dealers.
>
> > It's astounding that this is considered rational debate in this newsgroup.
>
> You are _so_ not in touch with your inner crackpot. What are you doing
> here, anyway?

I think he represents motorized lobby. You know, they are very crafty
in lying. Big Tobacco hired some PR agents to throw smoke on the whole
issue even after they knew smoking lead to cancer. Now Big Oil is
doing the same with Global Warming. Never trust the fox and follow the
money to find his trail.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185586771.535672.55960@e16g2000pri.googlegro ups.com...
> With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> decisions.

The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
the truth.

[Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman]

"Joe the Aroma" (who?) anonymously snipes:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman wrote:
>
> > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> > decisions.
>
> The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
> market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.

Yes, and the US will never have a free-market health care system,
since there are members of the wealthy elite (health care providers
and insurers) who benefit from gaming the current system.

However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 10:38 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185586771.535672.55960@e16g2000pri.go oglegroups.com...
>
> > With the way that most employer provided health care plans treat
> > people, they greedy profiteers will have brought it upon themselves if
> > they are legislated out of business. Certainly, the free market has
> > failed here, since the users are not the one's making the purchasing
> > decisions.
>
> The free market has NOT failed here, the notion that the US has a free
> market health care system is completely false. Nothing could be further from
> the truth.

There's nothing like a free market healthcare system, or
transportation. MONOPOLY is the law of the land. Remember, "The
greatest sin is competition"
-John D. Rockefeller

There's this person --wealthy person*, military leader, bureaucrat,
whatever-- that sees the need for change. He realizes that the chaos
and insecurity in society, not to mention the lies and the prevailing
injustice, can only bring an end to all... This is NOT a lion, as he
becomes one of us.

However, there's this other person WHO OPPOSES ANY CHANGE FOR THE
BETTER, and WHO WON'T ACCEPT COMPETITION. This is the MONOPOLISTIC or
HUNGRY LION, Satan himself indeed...

* There's people with money --and influence-- who use it for a good
cause. Just an example among the rich and famous: Paul Newman...

"I was campaigning at the University of Cincinnati and they admitted
with a certain amount of shame that only 19% of the eligible students
had voted in the 2004 election. But they had taken polls, the polls
had looked good but the kids were on cell phones and they weren't
being polled and the figures were going to be staggering because the
kids were engaged. Figures came out, 19%. So if people who have the
privilege of voting don't vote, then you have to ask if they're really
getting what they deserve. We have less of a percentage of eligible
voters voting than voted in Iraq which I think is shameful. So if
people get engaged, they can make the changes, but if they don't, then
we just have a chauffer up there motoring us wherever he wants to go
instead of us giving the directions."

http://www.darkhorizons.com/news06/cars4.php

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 10:49 pm, "David L. Johnson" <david.john...@lehigh.edu>
wrote:
> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> > -snip the usual-
>
> >> "rotten" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>> Why did the single payer referendums fail in Oregon and Massachusetts
> >>> then? The fact is that while people acknowledge there are large
> >>> problems with our health care system, if you look at polls you'll find
> >>> that people are satisfied with their own personal healthcare.
>
> > Amy Blankenship wrote:
> >> How often do polls reach people without phones?
>
> > Good point but statisticians have largely corrected for that, noting a
> > margin of error which includes both that and other anomalies.
>
> Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
> just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
> pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
> more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
> much more likely to support universal health insurance.
>
> But, they also don't tend to buy the products advertised on the programs
> that discuss the poles, so no one cares. They probably also don't tend
> to vote. Rich folks with a lot to lose (so they think) are the ones
> pollsters and politicians care about.
>
> Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
> Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
> who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
> pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.
>
> Polls are entertainment, not science.

And when they are not useful to the system, they are simply ignored.
Case in point...

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling
the situation with Iraq?"

Approve 25

Disapprove 69

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

[Mark]

David L. Johnson wrote:
> Typical polling does not correct for those without phones, it usually
> just ignores them. They are a small sample, but a biased one in such a
> pole, since they would tend to be otherwise marginalized, and might be
> more disappointed than average in their nonexistent healthcare and so
> much more likely to support universal health insurance.

Increasing numbers of young (and presumably non-poor, non-marginalized)
US residents have no /land-line/ phone (cell only), and I believe phone
polls exclude cellphones as well, since (I believe) it is prohibited to
random-digit dial cellphone prefixes. This tends to reverse the
economic bias in polls caused by missing the phoneless. In the short
term, the two may cancel out, but I suspect the new phenomenon's
influence will overwhelm the older one's within a few years.

[...]

> Margins of error correct for random anomalies, not systematic ones.
> Fundamental statistical assumptions include a random sample, and those
> who do not have phones (and, more seriously, those who do not deal with
> pollsters on the phone) are not random samples.

Agreed absolutely, though I tend to think the professional pollsters
would try a few heuristic corrections to deal with their sample
selection problems - I have seen a good paper on dealing with
non-response - but of course there is no way to estimate the resulting
error except for further heuristics. IOW, if non-response isn't ignored
entirely, then there's more art than science in the way it's dealt with.
>
> Polls are entertainment, not science.

Don't tell Roper/Gallup/Zogby.

Mark J.

[Joe the Aroma]

"Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when
health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think
it's hasty to make that conclusion.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when
> health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think
> it's hasty to make that conclusion.

My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
health care in the U.S.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 27, 11:28 pm, "Joe the Aroma" <bdj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.g ooglegroups.com...
>
> > However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> > since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago when
> health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now, I think
> it's hasty to make that conclusion.

Lets's not say is bad. Actually it's real good for those who profit
from it.

You know, it all depends who you ask.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 28, 6:14 pm, "Jack May" <jack....@comcast.net> wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote in message
>
> news:vOadnY1OD7awWzrbnZ2dnUVZ_siknZ2d@prairiewave. com...
>
>
>
> > "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1185396375.767640.217500@o61g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
> >> On Jul 25, 12:30 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> ...
>
> > Hey Don Quijote, I am hoping that gas goes to $20. a gallon. That is what
> > it will take to get America to abandon their cars. And the sooner the
> > better!
>
> At $20 a gallon there will a glut of alternative energy sources on the
> market at a low price, The result will be a lot more cars being bought.

The lazy fat couch potatoes are really stubborn. The word "change"
terrifies them, and bicycles are really out of their mind. Nevermind
they will get in shape and lead a healthy life. They are idiots (to
borrow Ed's word), and how can we expect idiots to see the need for
change.

Well, at least alternative energy won't pollute as much.

[donquijote1954]

On Jul 29, 5:10 am, Simon Brooke <si...@jasmine.org.uk> wrote:
> in message <877ioljhlk....@nospam.pacbell.net>, Bill Z.
>
> ('nob...@nospam.pacbell.net') wrote:
> >> > Oh, so you don't care about "most cylclists who are ingorant [sic] of
> >> > proper bicycling" and would favor natural selection to get rid of
> >> > them? Some of these cyclists who are "ignorant" are children who are
> >> > too young
> >> > to drive a motor vehicle. What do you propose to do with them? Do
> >> > you really have a problem with a bike lane along a two lane street
> >> > with a 25 mph speed limit and relatively little traffic, going past an
> >> > elementary school?
>
> >> Yes. What is the point of a bike lane on a low volume low speed street?
>
> > Keeping the parents of school kids happy for one.
>
> They'd be happier if their kids lived to be adults. Which means learning to
> use the road safely. Research in London (and Denmark and the Netherlands)
> shows that bike lanes contribute precisely nothing at all to cyclist
> safety. The same money which paints a bike lane buys a lot of quality
> training, which has a far greater effect on children's safety.
>
> Things may be different in the States, where streets are typically wider
> and the density of cyclists is so much lower. In Europe, cycle lanes are
> not a benefit.

In the States we would have to start by TRAINING THE DRIVERS and
banning some nasty behavior like cell phones. That's before they start
enough attention to the roads as to notice a bike.

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:46b279a1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1185592002.792281.190620@g12g2000prg.googlegr oups.com...
>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>>
>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now,
>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>
> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market health
> care in the U.S.

Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer system
(the government). Such a health care system will be like the public school
system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[still me]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:47:15 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net>
wrote:

>Such a health care system will be like the public school
>system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
>financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
>added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

Funny, I've come to think that Health Care is a luxury in the USA.

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 4, 11:16 am, frkry...@gmail.com wrote:

> Sidewalk cycling IS more dangerous than roadway cycling. Pretending
> that people will do it only in one direction is specious, and
> pretending they won't be at risk if they do is worse.
>
> Note, I'm not saying that nobody should ever ride on a sidewalk.
> There are times and places where it may make sense, and there are
> times and places where it can be done safely. But whitewashing the
> situation, pretending all the risk comes from riding the wrong-way,
> ignores the real dangers: cars cutting across sidewalks at driveways
> and parking lots, numerous blind spots, sidewalk edges that trap
> wheels, pedestrians & joggers & dogs with their random movements, sub-
> standard or dangerous pavement, interactions with surprised motorists
> when the cyclist crosses a road, etc.
>
> If a cyclist plans to use a sidewalk, even for fifty feet, they need
> to be aware of all of those things, and be on high alert. But the
> common thinking is "I'm just on the sidewalk; I'm safe." That's a
> delusion, and your posts purposely contribute toward that delusion.
>
> Fact is, you're so intent on gaining imaginary "arguing" points that
> you're willing to distort facts, spread misinformation, and endanger
> novices who read your posts. Those novices need to be warned against
> you.

OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership? Or you believe
yourself to be among a supreme elite smart enough to ride a bike among
traffic while the stupid 99% stay away from it? JUST ANSWER! Or just
admit you've riding a stationary bike!

[A Muzi]

>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.

>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is now,

>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.

> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market health
>> care in the U.S.

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer system
> (the government). Such a health care system will be like the public school
> system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
> financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
> added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!

You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 4, 10:23 am, still me <wheeled...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 23:47:15 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Such a health care system will be like the public school
> >system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense. It ought to be
> >financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich and/or a value
> >added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A total no-brainer!
>
> Funny, I've come to think that Health Care is a luxury in the USA.

I think it's more like WE CAN'T AFFORD THE LUXURY TO GET SICK. Other
luxuries we can probably afford, well at least with a good credit.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> ...
> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Google "Hubbert's Peak.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> > ...
> > OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
> > you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
> > SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>
> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>

Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

[A Muzi]

> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>> ...
>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Google "Hubbert's Peak.

Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage.

Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming"

Whatever.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>>
>
> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
danger of cycling.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> > On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> > <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> >> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >>> ...
> >>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
> >>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
> >>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
> >> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>
> > Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
> > couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
> > hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
> > in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
> > dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>
> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
> danger of cycling.
>

OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on
Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to
hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy
was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we
have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period.

So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to
them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming
measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE
LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter
(everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to...

(all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution)

TRAFFIC CALMING

Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and
traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby
improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving
the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe,
especially Northern Europe; less so in North America.

Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of
pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which
are side effects of the traffic. However, streets have many social and
recreational functions which are severely impaired by car traffic. The
Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (circa 1977) found that
residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more
friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with
heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc.
For much of the twentieth century, streets were designed by engineers
who were charged only with ensuring traffic flow and not with
fostering the other functions of streets. The basis for traffic
calming is broadening traffic engineering to include designing for
these functions.

There are 3 "E"'s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing
traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police)
enforcement. Because neighborhood traffic management studies have
shown that often it is the residents themselves who are contributing
to the perceived speeding problem within the neighborhood, it is
stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all
three components, and that engineering measures alone will not produce
satisfactory results.

A number of visual changes to roads are being made to many streets to
bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes,
and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. Visual traffic calming
includes lane narrowings (9-10'), road diets (reduction in lanes), use
of trees next to streets, on-street parking, and buildings placed in
urban fashion close to streets.

Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are
speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in
size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars
to between 10 and 25 miles per hour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming

COMING SOON
http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:46b4eb50$0$16403$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>>>
>>
>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>
> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
> danger of cycling.

Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons
>>>> ago when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it
>>>> is now,
>
>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
>>> health care in the U.S.
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US.
>> The present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single
>> payer system (the government). Such a health care system will be like
>> the public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common
>> sense. It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on
>> the rich and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on
>> luxuries. A total no-brainer!
>
> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion

My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than
my discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a employer
provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
Canada.

More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
Great system, eh?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote in message
news:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
>>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>>
>>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
>>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is
>>>>> now,
>>
>>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
>>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>>
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
>>>> health care in the U.S.
>>
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
>>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer
>>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the
>>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense.
>>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich
>>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A
>>> total no-brainer!
>>
>> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion
>
> My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
> chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my
> discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer
> provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
> Canada.
>
> More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
> who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
> coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
> Great system, eh?

Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he
finds himself in trouble. That says it all.

No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to
give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical
procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to
be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay
for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first
place?

The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the
VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

A Muzi wrote:
>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>
> Yeah I remember when "We're gonna run out in 1975!!" was all the rage.
>
> Back when "New Ice Age" sold newspapers, long before the bogus "Warming"
>
> Whatever.

Hubbert's prediction of when US domestic oil production would peak
proved to be correct.

Unless one believes that oil is made from some process in the center of
the earth that does not rely on ancient plant matter (for which no
evidence exists), oil will become more and more scarce. Certainly the
extraction costs are much higher than in the past and keep rising.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
GHAWAR IS DYING!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 5, 6:53 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4eb50$0$16403$88260bb3@free.teranew s.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> >> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> >>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >>>> ...
> >>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
> >>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
> >>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
> >>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>
> >> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
> >> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
> >> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
> >> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
> >> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>
> > How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
> > and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
> > Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
> > danger of cycling.
>
> Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
> dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.

Even a caveman knows that. 15 minutes in the street is all you need to
know that.

[A Muzi]

>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote
>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
>> danger of cycling.

Edward Dolan wrote:
> Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
> dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.

Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in
the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home
*****ing will kill you sooner.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranew s.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Andrew Muzi wrote:
> >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
> >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
> >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is
> >>>>> now,
>
> >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
> >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>
> >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
> >>>> health care in the U.S.
>
> >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
> >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer
> >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the
> >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense.
> >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich
> >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A
> >>> total no-brainer!
>
> >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion
>
> > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
> > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my
> > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer
> > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
> > Canada.
>
> > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
> > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
> > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
> > Great system, eh?
>
> Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he
> finds himself in trouble. That says it all.
>
> No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to
> give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical
> procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to
> be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay
> for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first
> place?
>
> The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the
> VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself.
>

I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How
would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?)

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> On Aug 4, 6:02 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
>> danger of cycling.
>>
>
> OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on
> Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to
> hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy
> was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we
> have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period.
>
> So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to
> them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming
> measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE
> LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter
> (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to...
>
> (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution)
>
> TRAFFIC CALMING
>
> Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and
> traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby
> improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving
> the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe,
> especially Northern Europe; less so in North America.
>
> Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of
> pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which
> are side effects of the traffic. However, streets have many social and
> recreational functions which are severely impaired by car traffic. The
> Livable Streets study by Donald Appleyard (circa 1977) found that
> residents of streets with light traffic had, on average, three more
> friends and twice as many acquaintances as the people on streets with
> heavy traffic which were otherwise similar in dimensions, income, etc.
> For much of the twentieth century, streets were designed by engineers
> who were charged only with ensuring traffic flow and not with
> fostering the other functions of streets. The basis for traffic
> calming is broadening traffic engineering to include designing for
> these functions.
>
> There are 3 "E"'s that traffic engineers refer to when discussing
> traffic calming: engineering, (community) education, and (police)
> enforcement. Because neighborhood traffic management studies have
> shown that often it is the residents themselves who are contributing
> to the perceived speeding problem within the neighborhood, it is
> stressed that the most effective traffic calming plans will entail all
> three components, and that engineering measures alone will not produce
> satisfactory results.
>
> A number of visual changes to roads are being made to many streets to
> bring about more attentive driving, reduced speeds, reduced crashes,
> and greater tendency to yield to pedestrians. Visual traffic calming
> includes lane narrowings (9-10'), road diets (reduction in lanes), use
> of trees next to streets, on-street parking, and buildings placed in
> urban fashion close to streets.
>
> Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are
> speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in
> size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars
> to between 10 and 25 miles per hour.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
>
> COMING SOON
> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=
>

All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with
because of the difficulties in implementing the solution.

The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2
to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that
includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[mark@drumbent.com]

On Aug 5, 11:18 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranew s.com...
>
> > > Andrew Muzi wrote:
> > >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has failed,
> > >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>
> > >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons ago
> > >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it is
> > >>>>> now,
>
> > >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
> > >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>
> > >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
> > >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free market
> > >>>> health care in the U.S.
>
> > >> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the US. The
> > >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single payer
> > >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the
> > >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common sense.
> > >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the rich
> > >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on luxuries. A
> > >>> total no-brainer!
>
> > >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical conclusion
>
> > > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment for a
> > > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more than my
> > > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer
> > > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
> > > Canada.
>
> > > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from people
> > > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
> > > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical bills.
> > > Great system, eh?
>
> > Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and yet he
> > finds himself in trouble. That says it all.
>
> > No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to
> > give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical
> > procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs to
> > be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to pay
> > for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the first
> > place?
>
> > The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have the
> > VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself.
>
> I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How
> would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?)


Hey, that's where I live! We've got some very nice bike paths (sorry,
"multi-user recreational pathwways" that started out as just bike
paths) , about 180 kilometres worth. I use them on occasion, but
there is enough of a cycling presence here that most motorists are
pretty considerate. There are of course a few suburban arterial roads
that I'd rather not be on if I can help it, but then again I try to
avoid the suburbs in general.

That said, we have a severe shortage of family doctors here. In Ottawa
I think the number without a family physician is 40%. Of course there
are lots of walk-in clinics, but a regular family doctor is much
preferred as one gets old and starts needing those regular tests...

Mark

[A Muzi]

>>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...

>>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.

>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.

>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
>>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
>>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
>>> danger of cycling.

> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>> OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on
>> Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to
>> hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy
>> was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we
>> have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period.
>>
>> So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to
>> them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming
>> measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE
>> LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter
>> (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to...
>> (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution)
>> TRAFFIC CALMING
>> Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and
>> traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby
>> improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving
>> the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe,
>> especially Northern Europe; less so in North America.
>>
>> Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of
>> pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which
-snip-
>> Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are
>> speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in
>> size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars
>> to between 10 and 25 miles per hour.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
>>
>> COMING SOON
>> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with
> because of the difficulties in implementing the solution.
> The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2
> to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that
> includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere.

A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??)

Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

[Edward Dolan]

<mark@drumbent.com> wrote in message
news:1186341439.475281.234550@l70g2000hse.googlegr oups.com...
> On Aug 5, 11:18 am, donquijote1954 <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 5, 7:12 am, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote in
>> > messagenews:46b4f24d$0$30848$88260bb3@free.teranew s.com...
>>
>> > > Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> > >>>>>> However, I stand by my statement that the free-market has
>> > >>>>>> failed,
>> > >>>>>> since there is no real free-market health care system in the US.
>>
>> > >>>>> "Johnny Sunset aka Tom Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > >>>>> Seeing as it's never really been tried, except perhaps many moons
>> > >>>>> ago
>> > >>>>> when health care was nowhere near as complex and expensive as it
>> > >>>>> is
>> > >>>>> now,
>>
>> > >>>> Joe the Aroma WHO? wrote:
>> > >>>>> I think it's hasty to make that conclusion.
>>
>> > >>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> > >>>> My point exactly. The FREE MARKET is failing to provide free
>> > >>>> market
>> > >>>> health care in the U.S.
>>
>> > >> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> > >>> Mr. Sherman is quite corred on this matter of health care in the
>> > >>> US. The
>> > >>> present system is broken and cannot be fixed except by a single
>> > >>> payer
>> > >>> system (the government). Such a health care system will be like the
>> > >>> public school system. It is not socialism, but simply good common
>> > >>> sense.
>> > >>> It ought to be financed via higher progressive income taxes on the
>> > >>> rich
>> > >>> and/or a value added tax on those who like to spend money on
>> > >>> luxuries. A
>> > >>> total no-brainer!
>>
>> > >> You have obviously not thought that through to its logical
>> > >> conclusion
>>
>> > > My logical conclusion was that I could not afford to get treatment
>> > > for a
>> > > chronic health problem, since my portion of the expenses was more
>> > > than my
>> > > discretionary income - and yes, I am "covered" under a[n] employer
>> > > provided "health plan". I really need to start trying to get a job in
>> > > Canada.
>>
>> > > More than 50% of recent personal bankruptcies in the US are from
>> > > people
>> > > who got sick, lost their jobs and/or health coverage or exceeded the
>> > > coverage limits, and exhausted their financial assets on medical
>> > > bills.
>> > > Great system, eh?
>>
>> > Mr. Sherman is a professional civil engineer with a very good job and
>> > yet he
>> > finds himself in trouble. That says it all.
>>
>> > No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted
>> > to
>> > give it up. Most of us do not want transplants or other heroic medical
>> > procedures, but we do want garden variety health care. Heath care needs
>> > to
>> > be made a right and not something you can only get if you can afford to
>> > pay
>> > for it. Where the Hell did such a crazy idea ever come from in the
>> > first
>> > place?
>>
>> > The sooner the present system goes kaput, the better. If I did not have
>> > the
>> > VA, I would have to think about emigrating to Canada myself.
>>
>> I suggested this to you elsewhere: Relocate the capital to Ottawa. How
>> would we go about it? (Within the Constitution, that is?)
>
>
> Hey, that's where I live! We've got some very nice bike paths (sorry,
> "multi-user recreational pathwways" that started out as just bike
> paths) , about 180 kilometres worth. I use them on occasion, but
> there is enough of a cycling presence here that most motorists are
> pretty considerate. There are of course a few suburban arterial roads
> that I'd rather not be on if I can help it, but then again I try to
> avoid the suburbs in general.
>
> That said, we have a severe shortage of family doctors here. In Ottawa
> I think the number without a family physician is 40%. Of course there
> are lots of walk-in clinics, but a regular family doctor is much
> preferred as one gets old and starts needing those regular tests...

"No nation that has gone to government paid health care has ever voted to
give it up." - Ed Dolan

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:

> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
> from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in
> the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home
> *****ing will kill you sooner.

Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic
undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic
motor scooter riders create considerable chaos.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 5, 3:24 pm, A Muzi <a...@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
> >> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> >>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> >>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
> >>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
> >>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
> >>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
> >>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
> >>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
> >>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
> >>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
> >>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
> >>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
> > "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote
> >> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
> >> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
> >> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
> >> danger of cycling.
> Edward Dolan wrote:
> > Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
> > dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.
>
> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
> from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in
> the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home
> *****ing will kill you sooner.
> --
> Andrew Muziwww.yellowjersey.org
> Open every day since 1 April, 1971-

For some people the option is STATIONARY BIKES. (And they come with
handlebars for upper body workout,)

[Edward Dolan]

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
news:13bc8vqmtu2mc5b@corp.supernews.com...
>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS THE
>>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@iinvalid.com> wrote
>>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous cycling is
>>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
>>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the true
>>> danger of cycling.
>
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> Cycling on highways with lots of traffic and no shoulders is extremely
>> dangerous. Even an idiot knows that much.
>
> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
> from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in the
> morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home *****ing
> will kill you sooner.

It is just a matter of time and you will die like a dog on the road that you
are.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[A Muzi]

> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long
>> gone from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between
>> buses in the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah!
>> Sitting home *****ing will kill you sooner.

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic
> undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic
> motor scooter riders create considerable chaos.

you're right. A drunk corn-fed 300lb Sophomore on a Spree is a daunting
sight careening through a red light.

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

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 5, 3:28 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
> > Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
> > from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in
> > the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home
> > *****ing will kill you sooner.
>
> Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic
> undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic
> motor scooter riders create considerable chaos.

The scooters are not that idiotic. They fill a void particularly when
riding a bike in traffic puts you at odds with cars.

Mine is parked outside. ;)

[donquijote1954]

On Aug 5, 4:26 pm, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.) wrote:
> "Just zis Guy, you know?" <u...@ftc.gov> writes:
>
> > On 04 Aug 2007 17:07:43 -0700, nob...@nospam.pacbell.net (Bill Z.)
> > said in <87ejiin8s0....@nospam.pacbell.net>:
>
> > >so you were a young, inexerpienced cyclist at one point and had
> > >problems that cleared up when you had more experience, but for some
> > >reason you attributed your former problems to bike lanes rather than
> > >to your lack of experience.
>
> > What always amuses me about your posts, Bill, is that you make
> > comments like this without spotting the self-evident irony.
>
> What's always amusing about you anti-bikelane fanatics is how you
> act like a bull in a china shop whenever anyone doesn't disparage
> bike lanes. :-)
>
> > See how Tome points out what happened as he became a more
> > experienced and skilful cyclist? He took to not using cycle
> > "facilities", just as many other experienced cyclists choose to
> > avoid them, and for the same reasons: they fix a problem which is
> > largely illusory (danger from same direction traffic) at the expense
> > of increasing a danger which absolutely is not (danger at junctions
> > and from opposing traffic).
>
> Nope, he merely developed the skills needed to ride safely in traffic,
> and then got some sort of anti-bike lane religion,

I don't think the believes held by the anti-lane crowd is a
religion... It's a more of a sect, luckily mostly confined to America,
and some copycats in the UK.

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>>>> OK, with such a motivation (warning the novices against you), I ask
>>>>>>> you (I hope there are many witnesses out there), WHAT THE HELL IS
>>>>>>> THE
>>>>>>> SOLUTION, so we can go from 1% to, say, 30% ridership?...
>
>>>>> On Aug 4, 2:15 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>>>>> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Google "Hubbert's Peak.
>
>>>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>>>> Oil production peak... It's gonna be fun to be alive and watch the
>>>>> couch potatos finally pedalling when things finally start going down
>>>>> hill (it'll be up hill for them though). I don't see much prevention
>>>>> in practice, particularly when bicycles are mostly banned from the
>>>>> dangerous roads --banned by fear, that is.
>
>>> "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman" <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>>>> How about stopping all the fear-mongering about how dangerous
>>>> cycling is
>>>> and the related promotion of h*lm*ts and segregated facilities? Chicken
>>>> Little was wrong about the sky falling, and you are wrong about the
>>>> true
>>>> danger of cycling.
>
>> donquijote1954 who? wrote:
>>> OK, let me put my week of watching predator behavior (Shark Week on
>>> Discovery Channel) to the test... Some fearless people have learned to
>>> hang from the pectoral fin of a shark and get a free ride! But one guy
>>> was bitten in front of the camera and his calf was gone. And then we
>>> have the majority of people who just fear the shark, period.
>>>
>>> So how this majority of people want to approach the predator is up to
>>> them, but I'd start by, a) TAMING THE BEAST (traffic calming
>>> measures), and/or b) separating the predator from the prey (BIKE
>>> LANES). And since some of you don't want to hear about the latter
>>> (everyone has a phobia), then let's turn our attention to...
>>> (all of these things are a package that comes with the revolution)
>>> TRAFFIC CALMING
>>> Traffic calming is a set of strategies used by urban planners and
>>> traffic engineers which aim to slow down or reduce traffic, thereby
>>> improving safety for pedestrians and bicyclists as well as improving
>>> the environment for residents. Calming measures are common in Europe,
>>> especially Northern Europe; less so in North America.
>>>
>>> Traffic calming was traditionally justified on the grounds of
>>> pedestrian safety and reduction of noise and local air pollution which
> -snip-
>>> Some additional traffic calming techniques that are often used are
>>> speed humps, speed cushions, and speed tables. These devices vary in
>>> size based on the desired speed. Humps, cushions and tables slow cars
>>> to between 10 and 25 miles per hour.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_calming
>>>
>>> COMING SOON
>>> http://atom.smasher.org/streetparty/?l1=Coming+Soon%3A&l2=the&l3=Banana+Revolution%21&l4=
>
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with
>> because of the difficulties in implementing the solution.
>> The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was
>> 2 to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that
>> includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost everywhere.
>
> A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??)

I have no children and no plans to have any. Good enough?

> Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions.

The world will implement population control, and there will be nothing
the foolish hominids can do about it. ;)

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Edward Dolan]

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
news:46b626b6$0$20193$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
[...]
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> All of that ignores the real problem that no one wants to deal with
>>> because of the difficulties in implementing the solution.
>>> The could be a decent life for everyone if the world's population was 2
>>> to 2.5 Billion. At 6.5+ Billion or more, forget about it, and that
>>> includes low enough traffic to make cycling reasonable almost
>>> everywhere.
>>
>> A highly elitist analysis. (you volunteering to disappear??)
>
> I have no children and no plans to have any. Good enough?
>
>> Let's go back to the real world and attainable solutions.
>
> The world will implement population control, and there will be nothing the
> foolish hominids can do about it. ;)

I most emphatically agree with Mr. Sherman's point of view on population.
Unfortunately, the human species is programmed to reproduce like crazy
lemmings. The future is full of horror as yet undreamed of because of this -
and there is nothing that can be done about it unless you get into the human
gene ("Brave New World") and change the way we are biologically.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

[Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman]

donquijote1954 wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:28 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com> wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Ed, it hasn't killed me yet- even though most of my cohort is long gone
>>> from other causes. Want an aderenalin buzz? Follow me between buses in
>>> the morning, brushing elbows on both sides. Danger? Bah! Sitting home
>>> *****ing will kill you sooner.
>> Don't you find the commute much safer when UW is on break? The moronic
>> undergraduate pedestrians wandering out into the street and idiotic
>> motor scooter riders create considerable chaos.
>
> The scooters are not that idiotic. They fill a void particularly when
> riding a bike in traffic puts you at odds with cars.
>
> Mine is parked outside. ;)

Note that the adjective "idiotic" modifies "riders", not "scooters".

Considering that motor scooters can travel the speed limit or more on
urban streets, and some can keep up with traffic on arterial roads, they
need to be operated the same way as motorcycles, not as bicycles.

However, in the area near Andrew's shop, it is not uncommon to find
students on scooters riding at considerable speed on the side walk,
across pedestrian only areas, running stop signs and stop lights, etc.

When climate allows, modern scooters (with low emission engines) are
more desirable than single occupant cars, since they use less fuel and
space.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful


--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Dana Myers]

Edward Dolan wrote:

> I most emphatically agree with Mr. Sherman's point of view on population.
> Unfortunately, the human species is programmed to reproduce like crazy
> lemmings.

Evolution has a