| THIS IS A READ-ONLY ARCHIVE FROM THE SORABJI.COM MESSAGE BOARDS (1995-2016). |
|---|
yeah yeah its a tired subject but god damn if this doesnt get my blood boiling. |
|
The popularity of bigger vehicles prompts a growing number of cities to ban 'compact' spaces at new projects in favor of one-size-fits-all. Move over. Here come more of those hulking behemoths, roaring down the road with names as big as all outdoors: Yukon, Tundra and Sequoia. Sport utility vehicles are growing in size and popularity, taking up a bigger share of the automobile market, and a bigger chunk of America's roadways and parking lots. Consider the mother of all SUVs: the Ford Excursion. It weighs 3.5 tons, seats nine and is 19 feet long. The rotund roadster can barely fit into a standard space. Squeezing an Excursion into a "compact" space would be like ramming a rhinoceros into a phone booth. To accommodate the bigger vehicles, including all those minivans and pickup trucks, several local cities have eliminated the compact parking space requirements that were adopted when driving small, gas-efficient cars was all the rage. Compact parking spaces are about a foot and a half narrower and 5 feet shorter than standard spaces. In some cities, developers are allowed to use compact spaces for up to 40% of all parking stalls. But in cities such as Santa Clarita, Riverside and Westminster, small spaces are out; big stalls are in. Developers of new parking lots and garages there are no longer allowed to build the smaller spaces. A proposal to make compact spaces roomier in unincorporated Los Angeles County awaits a decision by the Board of Supervisors. One Los Angeles city lawmaker said he also is considering changing the parking requirements to accommodate the bigger vehicles. "Even if they drive SUVs, people are parking in these compact spaces," said Councilman Hal Bernson. "It's a problem." It's a problem that is growing with the popularity of SUVs. Sport utilities represent nearly 25% of all new vehicle sales. Over the next two years, the number of SUV models is expected to jump from 67 to 85, say J.D. Power and Associates auto industry analysts. For the most part, the municipalities that mandate larger parking spaces have not cut back on the overall number of stalls they require for housing and commercial projects. The new rules simply mean that developers must build bigger parking lots and garages. But many developers are content to build the larger lots to serve the needs of big-car drivers. "Most companies don't want to build compact spaces anymore," said William Hurrell, vice president of Wilbur Smith Associates, an international engineering firm. "You hardly ever see anyone [adding] compact spaces anymore." As expected, SUV drivers love that many cities are eliminating compact parking stalls. They say they are tired of cramming their beloved vehicles into tight spots only to have adjacent vehicles leave dings on their shiny door panels. "It takes too long to find a big space," said UCLA student Jasmine Malek, explaining why she parked her hefty Ford Explorer in a compact space at the Westside Pavilion mall. "If I see a space, I take it." But the trend is not limited to Southern California. Throughout the state, 35 cities prohibit compact spaces in new developments, a study of 160 California cities by International Parking Design Inc., a Sherman Oaks-based architectural firm, found. The most common compact spaces are 71/2 or 8 feet wide and about 15 to 17 feet long. But a space like that would be a tight fit for the Ford Excursion: It could squeeze in with only 6 inches to spare on either side, and with the back end hanging out by 4 feet. Parking designers say many cities are replacing compact spaces with roomier, one-size-fits-all spaces. Glendale, for example, allows developers to install only a universal-sized stall that is 81/2 feet wide and 18 feet long. Who has the roomiest stalls in the state? Bell Gardens, Cerritos, Lawndale, Rialto and San Marcos ban compact spaces in new projects, allowing only standard spaces that are 9 feet wide and 20 feet long, according to the International Parking Design study. The city of Davis in Northern California can be considered the most unaccommodating community to the SUV driver. Davis parking standards allow developers to build nothing but compact spaces, measuring 71/2 feet wide by 16 feet long. Mike Webb, a spokesman for the Davis Building and Safety Department, said the trend of massive SUVs has yet to hit that college town, so the need for bigger parking spaces has never been raised. "In Davis, we probably do see more compact cars than not," he said. "A lot of vehicles in town are smaller, student cars." A measure pending a decision by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors would increase the compact space dimensions from 8 feet wide to 81/2 feet. The measure also would reduce the allowable percentage of compact spaces from 40% to 25% in new commercial developments. The measure has been endorsed by the county Regional Planning Commission. Not everyone likes the idea, however. Environmentalists and mass-transit advocates say municipalities that widen parking spaces are only indulging an environmentally destructive trend: a love affair with gas-guzzling vehicles. Martin Schlageter, conservation coordinator for the Sierra Club in Los Angeles and Orange counties, said the trend toward bigger parking spaces is counterproductive because it takes up more valuable land and supports practices that harm the environment. Another drawback to the trend of bigger spaces is that the big-vehicle craze could just as quickly shift back to compact cars with a spike in gasoline prices or a downturn in the economy. "The mix of automobiles changes from year to year," said Con Howe, director of planning for the city of Los Angeles. Whatever the future car craze, Leslie Wolff of Los Angeles loves her beefy Jeep Grand Cherokee. On a recent morning, she pulled into a West Los Angeles parking lot to stop at a frozen yogurt shop. All the standard-sized spaces in the lot were taken. Only a few compact spaces remained. So she crammed her SUV into a compact stall. Wolff admitted that motorists have yelled at her for such a move, but she said she doesn't have time to circle the neighborhood in search of a roomier stall. "I think they just have to make the spaces bigger," she said. "If they were all bigger, everyone would get more space, including the small cars." |
|
I never give my real info for crap like that. |
|
hm. |
|
I like the approach angry sam took to it. everytime he went to work, (in the Disney bldg in Burbank, where SUVs are almost mandatory) he would purposely park his Maxima, that hasnt been washed in probably 5 years, within inches of the drivers side of an SUV so the person would be forced to get their designer jeans dirty trying toget in. |
|
He has the right and is applauded for being a complete ass to someone because they drive an SUV? How understanding, respectful, and considerate of other's rights to choice. |
are you retarded? would you apply this logic to a chemical company dumping toxins into local estuaries? 'hey man, its my freedom of choice to dump these chemicals in a public waterway' Whether you like it or not, what YOU do has an effect on the rest of us. We have to live on this planet together. Get your head out of your ass would ya? Driving a car is not a right, its a privilege. SUVs make the roads more dangerous for other drivers, pollute 2x as much as standard sedans and consume twice as many natural resources as other compacts and sedans. Give me a break, driving an SUV is not about freedom of choice. How "understanding, respectuful and considerate" is an SUV driver to the rest of the population? |
If I choose to spend my hard earned, 50+ grand, that I worked my ass of for, on a slab of iron with four wheels that gets 2 gallons to the mile, for my daily 2 mile commute on traffic congested freeways, you think you have the right to park your hybrid electric-gas, low emissions, made out of recycled material car so close to my battleship that I have to crawl out the windows to get in and out? Just because my suv is a complete waste of natural resources, and contributes to the smog? Well, if that is the case, do not go bitching to me when I slam my iron-clad door into yours. I wonder what that would do to your Honda Insight? Probably would not even put a scratch on my door at all. And who would be at fault? That's right, YOU! Because last time I checked, your self-righteous pompus attitude does NOT entitle you to be a total jerk to someone who is not as "good" as you. |
The US is not a Facist State, yet. But you are. |
bumper stickers are just freedom of expression. sometimes i go to places where all the handicapped places are taken up by bmw's and lexii or suv-s, or else it had no handicapped parking at all. so i just straddle a line to take up two spaces or even park longways to take up 4 or 5. parking is also freedom of expression. |
My only question love is isn't banging your big door into his honda vandalism and therefore a crime? Besides, two wrongs don't make a right. Oh, and Reese, just because it has passed "government regs" doesn't necessarily mean that it is ecologically safe, or smart. Plundering our natural resources for a fashion statemtent is irresponsible. Can you do it legally, of course, but does that mean that it is the right thing to do for your kids or grandkids? Think about the long term effects vs. the immediate gratification and you will see that they are not the best things for the planet. Not trying to chew your asses out boys, but then again, not saying anything I haven't said before. |
I was hoping the wording would let everyone know where I stand, but allow the point to be made. My little car only gets 17 mpg, and it makes me sick. Especially with current gas prices. I would like to breath clean air as much as the next person. But, the point I was trying to make is that because someone does choose to be irresponisble and does choose to waste natural resources and polute the environment does not give others rights to stick bumper stickers on someone else's vehicles (while not nearly as destructive as slamming a steel truck door into a fiberglass car door, it is still vandilsm), or park so damn close to the offending vehicle that they have to crawl through windows. Plus, you would be hard pressed to get charges to stick to me, because I would most likely be gone before you discovered the damage. |
the article that started this thread was about how SUVs have started taking to parking in spots designated as compact because there are so many of them on the roads now. When you park your fucking monolithe in a space designated as compact...i have every right to park LEGALLY next to you, within the lines. Its inherent that its going to be a tight squeeze, i jsut park as far to the line as I can while still being in the line. Considering SUVs are inevitably on, or over the line.........do you get it now??? And reese, please, get a clue. Driving ANY car is not a right. Its a privilege granted to you by the state. Yes you have freedom of choice as a consumer, but at one point, certain drugs were legal and available to consumers, so was the purchase of slaves and asbestos-filled dry wall. Try using your brain and thinking progressively. SUVs are bad and hiding behind the intellectually-flawed, environmentally-ignorant and utterly selfish argument thats its some sort of right is just retarded. |
the anti-prohibitionist broke the laws. the civil rights leaders broke the law. its called civil disobedience trace. while maybe not the best example, an activist bumper sticker on an suv is the least of worries for the greater good. |
I am certainly not going to use them, even if they were legal, but I do not think the US Gov't has any right what so ever to tell me what I can and cannot purchase. Drugs are very irresponsible and bad, but I still should have the choice of killing myself with them if I choose. Suicide is a cowards way out, and I have no respect for anyone who would even attempt it, but I should have the right to kill myself if I so choose. Same goes for abortion. I personally feel it is wrong, but legally it is your body, so you should have the right to choose wether or not you keep the baby. You cannot have it both ways. Either Pro Choice all the way or none of the way. No such thing as picking which choices you should be allowed. I never said it was a right to drive said vehicle, I said it was a right to waste my money on it. |
You agree SUVs have a greater affect on the community? Can you say that legalized drugs would have a similar effect on the community? Can you say that legalized abortion effects the community in a way similar to SUVs? SUVs dump extra toxins in the air. Air we ALL share. They use 2x resources. Resources we ALL share. They make the roads more dangerous because of their excessive size. Roads we ALL share. Drugs and abortion don't effect anyone but the very immediate people involved. Drugs are more of a community problem illegal than legal. Abortions are not a community problem unless illegal. Can you tell me how SUVs are NOT a community problem? |
I just put two and two together that driving back from the desert Monday, I saw this very SUV. It matched the newspaper description, was so god damn flattened that there is no way, ANYONE in that vehicle could have survived. I saw it in traffic on a flatbed about 35 miles from the accident. There was even a sticker on the driver side that said "BioHazard". I think its safe to say they weren't into the metal band. Thank god there were no other cars nearby that could have been victim to this SUV. The rollover capability in these vehicles is so very dangerous. Especially on a stretch of interstate i know very well, on the way to Vegas, that is known for its high winds. Higher center of gravity + high winds + plus 80mph freeway driving = catastrophe |
I am not talking about Community Rights, I am talking about Personal Rights or Personal Freedoms. And, one could argue that making drugs illegal is better for the community, since it would be less likely that someone under the influence of them would be driving in the neighborhood my child is playing street hockey in.... Abortions are different, because there is no telling what impact on society you removing the fetus from your womb might have, or on the future. The "fetus" could grow up to be the first Woman President, or the next Charles Manson. The case agains drugs and SUVs, at leaste do have scientific facts to back them. If you will excuse me for saying this, you tread very close to Socialism or Communism when you talk about "whats better for the community". |
where legalization would benefit the community would be the absolution of gangs and the black market warfare that surrounds the illegal drug trade. "The "fetus" could grow up to be the first Woman President, or the next Charles Manson." This is completely irrelavent and pointlessly speculative. "The case agains drugs and SUVs, at leaste do have scientific facts to back them" Huh? Having a grave concern for the environment and highway safety has nothing to do with my political philosophies. Thats like saying, putting a drunk driver behind bars because of the threat to the community is akin to communism. It doesnt jive man. |
I just think it is impossible to legislate common sense or responsibility, or even self preservation. Mankind has a lot of growing up to do before we can move on. |
|
|
what's wrong with Socialism or Communism, anyway? but nevermind. The parking issue could be a good thing, patrick: bigger spaces = wider spaces = less spaces =less parking = less driving = people hopefully taking the bus. -- i had a sorabji dream again. It was Antigone, again (why is it only ever him?) except he looked different than before, he looked like 2 members of System of a Down put together (i watched a video before i went to bed). He was really short. He was all dirty and dressed like a raver. I know he looks nothing like this. Soother and huge wallet chain n' everything. We talked on my pourch. It was dull. |
|
|
while id love to believe that wisper....the fact that they would "solve" this parking problem in this ridiculous manner exemplifies their pathetic problem solving abilities. So to deal with the problem of less parking due to bigger spaces they would probably just pave that much more space instead of encouraging alternatives. |
If think is teh appropriate noun there |
I never said it was a right to drive said vehicle, I said it was a right to waste my money on it." Again, that sums it up. You can't have it both ways. Freedom of choice, or a government controlled selection. As far as only seeing in black and white, I resent that statement. Freedom must be protected. You allow one freedom to slip, and before you know it, they are all gone. But, perhaps you would prefer it that way? I understand you own a business, Patrick. What if it was decided that for enviromental reasons and child labor laws, clothing was only to be produced by government sanctioned textile mills? Wanna wait in line for toilet paper? |
finally, another clear minded, non-socialist sorabjite. |
You're still complaining so I guess not. sheesh. |
|
on the surface reese im not against government imposed sanctions against foreign gov'ts and businesses who violate child safety and environmental mandates. I expect our gov't to set environment and labor standards, voted and approved my our elected officials. Why would I have a problem against being told I can't do business with businesses I wouldnt do business with to begin with?????? hiding behind this "freedom" of choice bullshit to justify why its ok for the masses to buy SUVs, despite their destructive and dangerous manner is weak. fuck man, in that case...its my RIGHT to own an f-16. Motherfucker!!! I want my f-16...or better yet...MY Bradley m111 tank, its my right!!!! |
"Why would I have a problem against being told I can't do business with businesses I wouldn’t do business with to begin with??????" Because you are not the only person who lives in the US, and I for one do not want the Government telling me who I may or may not conduct business with. Because that is none of their business. If the masses want to buy a SUV, then they will make sure their elected officials do not vote in measures that will restrict the production of SUV's. Oh, and I am not a kid, thank you very much. |
"Because that is none of their business." The welfare of the general population IS the government's business. The general population is afforded certain protections from minorities AND majorities. It doesnt matter if the majority are driving SUVs. That doesnt make them right. Your dim-witted, Montanian, outback view that you somehow have a right to own and drive such a vehicle on public roads that is not only an environmental disaster but an elevated threat to other motorists is insane. I could care less about what you drive on your property but what you do on public roads IS a public concern. Step out of your bubble man, wake up and realize there is a world around you and your actions affect it. Ok, im done repeating myself Clearly your too dense or just plain incapabable of seeing beyond yourself. |
that's Reese's argument, anyway. |
won't take responsibity for his actions, no one else should either. |
actions, because we are too dumb to think for ourselves. Public roads are just that, public. As long as the cars meet current safety and exhaust requirements, and have proper insurance, and have proper registration, and the operator has a valid operators license then he is allowed to drive it on the roads he pays sales tax and fed tax for maintaining. Someone has already screwed up on the "Driving is a privilege, not a right" matter. Patrick, you are arguing against fundamental ideals that this country was founded on. Hell, I bet you do not like the "All Men are Created Equal" part of the declaration of independence. Because I can tell from this discussion that you do not believe that for a minute. You think that people who do not hold the same principals as you are wrong, if not even beneath you. Does that not directly contradict the diversity values to claim to cherish? Diversity is the complete opposite of how you argue. And I like my freedom of choice. I like to be able to decide for myself that I do not want a gas guzzling, smog belching behemeth. I don't want that choice made for me because I am capable of thinking for myself. Much to your dismay I am sure. |
Operating and liscensing one is another matter entirely. |
My point exactly spunk. I may be able to purchase an f-16 but what harm is it sitting behind my trailer collecting dust. its not a public threat to safety. Doesnt anyone else find the thought of comparing the freedom to own an SUV to the fundamentals this country was founded on as abusrd as I do? |
|
And, whisper, I am anything but dull. |
but for god's sake don't park them on the side of the road. i'm tired of going down roads in residential areas that have been bottle-necked because everybody has to park their SUV or fat-ass truck on the curb. |
Not once did I say I wanted one. In fact, if you would notice the way I have described them, I obviously think they are hideous. But that is not the point. I know I have made my point, but you refuse to see it or admit it. All I have been trying to say is this: Like it or not, until the laws are changed, you do not have the right to be an arrogant, pompous ass to somebody because you do not agree with their choice of vehicle. And if you think that the size of a person's vehicle determines their worth as a human being and contributor to society, then you are the one with the obvious attitude problem and the wrong outlook on freedom. Freedom is as small as being able to choose between chocolate (STOP EATING MY FLESH) or vanilla ice cream, or as big as attending services at Apple Valley Community Christian Church or the Los Angeles Order of Satan's Children. Both should be cherished, because if you take the smaller, seemingly absurd freedoms away, sooner or later, the larger, more important freedoms will be taken away. I cannot believe I have to point that out. |
one complains about not being able to drive a tracked vehicle on the road. Isn't that an abuse of freedom? |
Get a god damn minivan if you have kids or need hauling space. I have no problems with minivans because they have a lower center of gravity and generally speaking a lower profile and better gas mileage. You should have to pay extra emission fees if you plan to drive one of those fuckers. You should have to pay extra taxes on them due to the extra danger they bring to the roads. Your insurance should be doubled if not tripled as well because of the extra threat they pose to other drivers. You should be delegated to the same traffic laws that other trucks are confined to. Perhaps even a special permit to drive one. They are only getting bigger and more dangerous. Something needs to be done. Accommodation is not the answer as the article that started this thread points out. If you get an SUV for this misnomer of safety, then fine, if its safety you want, safety you get. In the right hand lane only and 55mph MAX. That should reduce the chances of roll over considerably. I have no problem with the utility use of these vehicles but as you damn well know utility is not the reason they are selling like hotcakes. All of my suggestions should encourage the masses to make a more sensible choice when purchasing a car. |
trace....im pretty srue our gov't wouldnt allow the sale of an f-16 to a civilian regardless of how much money I had. Whats to stop me from selling it to a foe. Decommissioned aircraft are available but not current military technology. |
|
Are you one of those weenie touch type fuckos, sem? |
Yes and no. But I am against helmet laws. |
Well, it certainly determines their contribution to an auto accident. In Texas, we call that "physics." |
house without them knowing is not a crime...does that make it a right? Are there some states that still haven't passed marital rape laws...if they haven't...in those states marital rape is not a crime...does that make it a right? food for thought on what's a right and what isn't |
Anyway, Reese, you dimwit, some individual freedoms must be taken away so we can have the majority of the other individual freedoms. This is commonly referred to as "social order." I cannot believe I have to point that out. |
No. I said that the Government should not make it a law. Should I only do things if it's the law? Did you wear seat belts before it became a law, or did common sense tell you to put the damn thing on? Might as well make it against the law to point a loaded gun at your own face. Common sense/responsibility should be the determining factors in what you do and what you do not do. Someone should not have to tell you to do certain things. That would be the difference between a "free & open society" and a totalitarian government. Do you need a law to tell you what is right and what is wrong? Or does common sense tell you that if you have an accident while not wearing a seatbelt, chances are you are going through the windshield? Do you need someone to tell you that video taping someone without thier consent is wrong, or can you figure that out for yourself? But if you really need a law to tell you what is safe or not, then I guess you truly are stupid, and you need big brother to tell you what to do. |
How many deaths and inuries (insurance payouts) are saved each year because of a seatbelt or helmet? Its similar to the impact of cigarette smoking on the public health system. The overwhelming success of SUVs reese has demonstrated the masses do not always do whats best for them individually or society on the whole. Your elementary analysis of a free society vs. a totalitarian society is totally whack homeboy. Like ive been saying all this time man, try and think FORWARD, PROGRESSIVE. Realize that just because its 'legal' to buy and drive an SUV doesnt mean its the best for society. |
|
|
If the house burns down, what will that do to homeowner's insurance? And don't go off about irrelevance because you do not smoke, because I do not own a SUV nor do I plan on buying one. I think a girl should be able to walk through central park at night naked as the day she was born and not be in danger, BUT common says she will not. Do we need to make a law saying girls should wear clothes at all times? Let's take that a little further. How about a dress code. Suppose we find that girls who wear mid-drifts with red shorts get raped more often then those who wear tank tops and blue shorts, do we need to make it a law that girls are not allowed to wear mid-drifts and red shorts? Get it? At all? This conversation is going nowhere. |
|
|
Fascist! Once you start requiring people to actualy READ other people's posts before they respond, that could lead to moderators trying to CONTROL what we SAY. That's the slippery slope to POLICE STATE, baby! |
|
the problem is the fusion between personal responsiblity and socialism. helmet laws: patty argues they're good because people who don't wear helmets increase our insurance costs. well, no. people who insure motorcyclists could provision that you must wear a helmet. that would reduce their undue cost. it burdens our public health system. which is a move away from freedom. patty is a socialist. everyone is a victim. |
not I. |
|
|
So then, you don't need to use common sense when responding to others posts in order to make sense? Or is it you like looking stupid? |
|
Yeah. My sense is uncommon. Duh. "Or is it you like looking stupid?" Well, you seem to like looking at stupid, so I might as well comply. Whatever increases the surface tension of your translucent colloidal membrane, that's my motto. |
"Did I say I would not wear one? No. I said that the Government should not make it a law." And, I didn't say that you said you would not wear one. Christ, man, you're so defensive! It's almost as if you see yourself as a...victim? Are we victimizing poor Reese on this board? Is he beset by people exploiting him and making fun of his silly ass views? Poor baby! Bubbles: "Stop picking your ass, and look at what is plainly put in front of you." I have a god given right to pick my ass, in public if need be! If you don't like it, don't look at it and don't smell it! If there was a turd in the middle of the road, I'll bet you'd walk over and sniff it, wouldn't you? Some people, I swear! They just want to control every move you make, what you eat, what you read...even what you pick! |
If the house burns down, what will that do to homeowner's insurance?" What if they're living in an APARTMENT and they burn down the entire COMPLEX? Nut slappin' dog food snackin' Clinton luvvin' Afghanistan chewin' marmot raisin' BUTT PUMPER! |
|
|
liberalism leads to hitler. freedom comes from using personal responsibility as the ruler by which laws are measured. |
|
victims. you pass laws restricting potential perpetrators. most business law does the opposite. |
the majority have no personal responsibility all together. this is demonstrated to no end in american culture. no regard, no responsibility at all. if this is your basis for the great capitalist republic in your head nate, it appears to be failing like socialism and communism |
|
|
|
personal responsbility goes out the door with the implementation of socialist systems. it is not a failing of capitalism, patty, but of the socialist systems that we've snuck in the door. we are in a semi-facist state because of welfare and social security. |
(Only someone very young could have come out with that gem, Nate) |
young because it is not the mainstream belief? or young because it doesn't ignore history? do you know what fascism means? define fascism. if you're a socialist, you're either waiting for the dictator to take over or you are a tool of those who are. |
|
|
i do know where nate is coming from, by the way. fascists do have do tend to have socialist ties. mussolini was a member of the socialist party until he was thrown out in 1914 because he wanted italy to enter world war one - fighting against the germans. he founded the fascist party in 1919, naming after a type of ax (the fasces) used by the romans as a symbol of power. the word nazi is an acronym for "national socialist." as i know it, fascism means that complete power rests in the hand of one party under a dictator. it's usually characterized by extreme nationalism, suppression of opposing political views, and by-products like xenophobia and racism. and is generally a militaristic state. so, then i look out and see all the dubya bubbas in their suv-s with flags on them (nationalism); and there seems to be suppression of information (for security reasons, of course) in the press and a general view that anything usupportive of the war on terrorism in its current form is unamerican; and of course we seem to be incapable of working with the rest of the world on too many things, evidently because it will compromise our wealth and power. also, there's certainly a current of racism involved in our little war. i still don't believe that "95% of all pakis want to kill us" was strictly a rhetorical device. this is all can think of right now. |
|
that's not really the point, though. that the government controls these gives the government one more step towards the ability to be taken by a single man. i agree-- the increases in government control since 911 have been steps towards facism. i'd argue that these are 'right wing' steps, in the true sense of the word. in fact, though we have no way of knowing, i'd guess that clinton or gore would have pushed in the same direction, and probably with more force. (even if only because they are constantly under popular pressure to act in militaristic ways because they are dems.) it's true that i think most people are too stupid to vote. i also think that if the USA is handed to a dictator, it will be handed over by those very people. |
i think we'd find out really quick how fucked up things would get for the poor and middle classes. |
that into the concept that certain ethnic groups are only worth a certain percent of Northern Europeans? That would really accent that. Super. |
|
is there something better than capitalism? is it realistic? is there anything other than freedom that can combat facism? or would you prefer a facist state where everyone was taken care of equally? |
|
|
how do you figure? in pure capitalism, the products which allow you to steal software would be available so long as there was a demand-- if there is a demand for software piracy, that which enables it would be supplied. further, fascist garbage like the DCMA would never happen. further further, "capitalism unleashed would lead to fascism as quickly as any other form of government. " capitalism isn't a form of government, but rather an economic system. as an economic system it does give those who control the resources considerable control over those who demand the resources, however, the control is decentralized. if there is demon control of one resource, someone comes up with an alternative to that resource and the control is lifted. in socialism, the control of all resources is centralized. this is like putting nukes in all major american cities and putting the button that detonates them in the middle of baghdad. someone's going to press that button. socialism is a line protocol with no error checking. it maybe faster in theory, not having to pass checksums, et al, but the assumption that there is no line noise isn't reality. |
so i don't see how capitalism completely decentralizes anything, ulitmately. back in the late 19th century and the turn of the 20th all the wealth and resources were pretty much centralized in that small percentage of the population of industrialists and robber barons. an english philosopher named herbert spencer used darwin's ideas to create "social darwinism." his books became bibles to people like rockefeller and carnegie, who said: "we accept and welcome, therefore, as conditions to which we must accomodate ourselves, great inequality of enviroment; the concentration of business, industrial and commercial, in the hands of a few; the law of competition between these, as being not only beneficial, but essential to the future progress of the human race." in america, a yale professor named graham sumner addressed the problem of how this great capitalist system should deal with with the poor and the disaffected in his book "what the social classes owe to each other." the answer was, in short, "nothing." men are more free, he argued, if they are allowed to fend for themselves and struggle. his idea of the "forgotten man" is still the basis of the sense of victimization that the nates of the world feel: "when A and B combine to make C give something to D, then C is the forgotten man who by contriving to acquire enough substance to be levied upon [by taxes] is thereby rendered in behalf of the less deserving D." competition for resources was right and natural, and "millioniares are a product of natural selection....let it be understood we cannot go outside of this alternative: liberty, inequality, and the survival of the fittest; not liberty, equality, and the survival of the unfittest." i'm sure that in adam smith's day, the "invisible hand" of the free market worked just fine, but things are different in the 21st century. things like this are why i don't start jacking off every time i hear the word capitalism. which is not to say i'm a socialist - i'm a political imbecile and i accept that. but i do think that either system would be at the hands of an elite. |
we cannot escape inequity... flawless equity is as much a myth as all men being created equal. however, you can raise the floor of the bottom, which has clearly happened in the USA. can you deny that our poor are wealthy by much of the world's standards? a poor man can become a rich man. anywhere in capitalist (american) society, if you have the brains you can succeed. true, you might not have all the education that makes it obvious that you can succeed. true, you might not have the rich family to give you confidence. but under the law, for the most part, you have every opportunity to succeed. you are also free to make your life hell. to make bad choices. to, through your own stupidty, loose everything. is that a failing of capitalism? |
i'm not against capitalism; i'm trying to establish that it's not necessarily protection against fascism, and even an ally to it. my friend is going to open a store - it'll sink or swim, that's life. big deal. it's the big businesses that everyone is worried about - enron, for example. all that stuff about spencer and sumner has to do with how easy it is to justify corporate fascism on moral grounds, biological determinism, nationalism, etc. i don't see fascism as being part of some socialist revolution. i think that every decision we make as a country has to do with preserving the hegemony of corporate america - every time we back out of a treaty, declare an enemy, or ignore other countries objections to our policies, it's not because of socialism. capitalism is our identity. i just don't want it to get us into trouble. |
i'd agree that capitalism isn't necessarily protection against fascism. but it is better protection than most, because the majority of citizens truely feel and individual stake in their wellbeing. capitalism is deadbolting your door at night. socialism is nailing your door open, putting a twelvepack on your coffee table, and forbidding your daughters to wear clothes. |
|
enron may have been an enemy of capitalism, but it was also a natural outgrowth of it. sort of rogue capitalism. unchecked capitalism incubates people like ken lay. lemme put it this way: i'm a handicapped dude, capitalism has been a boon for me in terms of healthcare. it's the free market that's supplying me with all the cool wheelchairs, excellent medical treatment, etc. my life would be shitty if i had to depend on government issue stuff. that's on half of what makes me free. the other half is the americans with disabilities act that had been championed by the lefties. it was passed in 1990, when bush 1 was president. by that time, i had already been in a chair for 3 or 4 years. one time i went to a job interview and found there was no place for me to park my car; another time i got a job and on my first day i found i couldn't even get through the door of any of the bathrooms. when i called to set an appointment for an interview, i would tell people up front that i was in a chair and if it was a problem tell me now. then i would go though the entire interview and get a call later saying "we tried somebody in a wheelchair before, but it just didn't work out." and of course there were the limited number of stores, restaurants, etc. i could get into. so the ada was passed, and immediately the chorus of voices on the right start chiming in with "is this our problem, do they want us to wipe their asses?" and all that. no less than william f. buckley said in a firing line debate i was watching that the ada was "wasteful" and "for the money we're spending on them we could buy each handicapped person a limousine and a chauffeur." which would've been nice, but not as nice as the other. and it's not like i'm coddled, i'm just able to lead a life that's closer to a normal person's. i had a stake in my individual wellbeing. |
But I am not a cold one. I take huge issue with Buckley. I don't see the huge economic impact of widening doors and building a few ramps and spray-painting a couple of parking spots blue. Some of the best talent is in a chair. I think it would cost me more to prevent your access to my facility then to encourage it. Oh, and if you have not figured this out already, I do not work for the psi network, that was a joke. |
AOL-Time Warner Exxon-Mobil Worldcom Microsoft Are you smoking again, Nateypoo? |
what have you been smoking? you made my point for me. |
You are soft in your ideological complacency. |
Worldcom is a direct result of capatalism and market competition. AOL-Time Warner is not the only player in it's pond, there is plenty of compitition. Exxon-Mobil is definately not a monopoly. Microsoft should be the american dream (or ford or ibm or intel). A couple of nobody's who come up with a good idea and become billionare's. |
|
Like I said, you twins are blinded by ideology. Keep arguing against that straw man, fellas. |
keep digging, tiggins. |
Is this your argument, babycakes? |
this is hilarious. you're clueless. |
|
more risk can equal more death |
|
|
hey patrick, i just dreamt about you. your voice was deeper than i had imagined and you were writing something about chickens- chickens raised for eating. bet you're glad to hear that. |
while everyone is gagging at the that thought, i will say thanks for dreaming of me. my voice is pretty deep... daddy on bass....... |
|
|
myself included. |
|
I will declare myself dictator. You may now all bow before me. |
|
|
ever notice it's always the dudes on the right who are offering to be the dictator? |
|
|
it is my opinion that the left want to dictate. only they mask it as a social benefit. |
Golden Example |
humans are clearly too stupid and irresponsible to be completely laisse faire about it. this place would have been destroyed already if that were the case. |
I resent that. I am, for the most part, a conservative. I do not think that because we hold the belief that the public should be ruled by common sense and a sense of responsibility instead of a million laws, that we are stupid |
|
for the record, i never said make a law banning the vehicles either. |
this could be an opportune time for you to use the word "ignorant" to make yourself feel smarter. i definitely have quite a honker on this face of mine. |
|
Seatbelts, helmets, liability insurance, car seats, hell, even stopping for pedestrians. I suppose some of those things we need laws for so we can punish the freaks who do not obey them, but it seems to me having a road block to check for seat belts seems like a very close approach to a police state |
i have practical reasons for not liking SUVs - they bottleneck the street i live on. when i'm at the belknap and calhoun intersection where i can make a legal left on a red, there's always an SUV on the right line blocking my view of traffic so i can't turn. i was crossing the street at a light downtown - the "walk" sign was on - passing in front of an SUV; the driver (and there's always just one) and the front end were so high that he couldn't see me; he lurched forward while i was passing in front of him and i had to beat on the front grate to keep him from hitting me. i went on and looked back at him...he was pissed off at me for hitting his vehicle. there have always been trucks, pickups, buses, and vans to contend with - but now it's just fucking ridiculous. but i don't expect people to make a law against them. most of all i don't like the "i can do anything i want with my money" attitude. and that's what bugs me about our government, the idea that we can do anything we damn well want either making or spending money. |
|
but you also need to realize those things you mention are a source of income for our gov't. im not saying whether helmet laws or seatbelts laws are right or wrong, just that they are a source of income. do away with those and you're looking at more taxes. so take your pick. |
in the end though, and ive said this before, if you make the decision to cross the street illegally, you give up your right of way. a 2 ton car is a lot more difficult to stop than a 150lb pedestrian. |
|
|
Relevant. Also talks about how light the sentences are if you hit a pedestrian. Now, don't get any ideas, boys. |
A pedestrian-friendly ideology must infiltrate the courthouse as well, say advocates. Unless a motorist involved in a pedestrian crash is intoxicated, winning a conviction is often difficult. And when guilty verdicts are returned, they are frequently followed by lenient sentences. In December, a Montgomery County court assessed a $500 fine to Christopher Brockman, 20, who pleaded guilty to a charge of reckless driving following the death of a woman in a crosswalk on Rockville Pike. The driver had been weaving through traffic and speeding before running a red light and striking the woman, according to local news accounts. "If you want to kill someone and get away with it, run them over at night while they're crossing the street," says John Wetmore, a Maryland resident who produces Perils for Pedestrians, a monthly cable-access television program dedicated to improving pedestrian safety. "You'll get a slap on the wrist." |
Why, I wonder, does it go through the trouble of explaining ethnicity and economic back grounds of the victims? If they wander into the street and get smacked, what difference does that other info make? |
I've observed it in my neighborhood. since the rich white yuppies have migrated into Silverlake in the last 2 years, ive noticed stop signs and stop lights popping up in places that never needed it. Most of them are three way intersections where only one stopsign is needed, not 3. sense of entitlement and maybe education of how to work the system perhaps contribute to this idea, that well to-do neighborhoods get looked after first. Its in city officials best interest to cater to the rich first. |
Democrats want to regulate what you do at work. Republicans want to regulate what you do at home. it's that simple." (courtesty Matt Feazle) |
"Richmond Highway, he says, is dangerous "from here to Alexandria," eight miles north. Both walkers and motorists are to blame, Wilson says, for not being more cautious. He expresses contempt for drivers who refuse to accommodate pedestrians with impaired mobility. "Those muthafuckas don't care," he says. Wilson doesn't bother with the crosswalk, instead sprinting across the highway 20 yards from the light. Of his tendency to jaywalk, Wilson says, "I just got a habit, off and on. I'm not trying to make a habit of it." It's hard to blame Wilson for spurning the pedestrian crossing. If you stand at the crosswalk, you'll wait the better part of three minutes for a walk signal. You don't get very far across the seven lanes of asphalt before the walk signal goes out. The "Do Not Walk" sign doesn't come on—burned out, probably—so then you're on your own. The impulse is to sprint. Moving quickly, you cross in 17 seconds." **** In other wors, it's too inconvenient to wait three minutes for a crosswalk. Even if you do, the "don't walk" sign is intimidating. So, I guess the article is arguing that minorities and homeless people are a) impatient to the point of stupidity, b) so weak willed that they're scared by a "don't walk" sign. There are several issues that are race and class related, but this is NOT one of them. If people are so stupid or impatient that they walk out into the street when there are crosswalks available, it is NOT a race or class issue. To say otherwise is a disservice to valid race and class politics. |
Anyway, my purpose for citing that article was to show how lenient the sentences are (in this area) for striking pedestrians, not to talk about how racist (or not) city planning imperatives are. |
pretending to hit someone and then leaning on the horn is just gross. i really dislike obnoxious horn usage, especially in cities. |
|