Will there one day be a bi-pass around <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:place w:st="on">Sebastopol</st1:place> and highway twelve?
[Five, maybe ten years]?
<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p>
Will our presidency and his Crew become about as obsolete and once entertaining and important as the Miss America pageant?
[4 MzT. Yes I know it already iz]
<o:p></o:p>
How long will it take to find the next best thing bigger than our universe?
<o:p></o:p>
What else? Your turn? :hmmm:
RichT
07-25-2008, 10:55 PM
Will there one day be a bi-pass around <st1:place w:st="on">Sebastopol</st1:place> and highway twelve?
[Five, maybe ten years]?
<o:p></o:p>:hmmm:
In my 23+ years in Sonoma County, I've seen a few articles in the PD regarding a bypass for Sebastopol. Seems that this has been discussed for well over 30 years. The problem is, the longer a solution is deferred, the more difficult and costly it becomes. Possible routes have become developed, making condemnation and purchase of land necessary for any route much more difficult. As the population continues to grow and traffic increase along with it, we are approaching gridlock within our little town with the crush of commuter traffic passing through. The surface streets simply do not have the capacity to handle the load placed upon them.
Quite frankly, I don't see a solution coming forth anytime in the foreseeable future. Sonoma County is not actively looking at any bypass routes and CalTrans does not appear to have any plans as well. And, with our esteemed legislature looking to steal dedicated transit funding to balance a bloated budget, means to pay for any such venture will be very difficult to come by.
For those who must travel through town during commute hours, take some good reading material with you; you're going to need it.:pullshair:
Lenny
08-06-2008, 03:27 PM
Will Bush actually go out in Jan.? Or will we be engaged (as Bush clearly wants) with Iran such that martial law is declared and the sitting pres. stays put?
Me thinks there's a black helicopter under your bed.
Smoke that and you will be a new person, all over again!
Lenny
08-08-2008, 03:06 PM
LOL! Not really, I thought we were wondering out loud? This has occured to me...I wonder if it has occured to others. Just anxious to see a good clean election, with a new pres that can undo some of the dire damage Bush has done to our country. I've lost all faith in our government.
My advice: have no faith in government.
This experiment in freedom we live in (though dying) was born out of distrust of government.
All government is a necessary evil, and the less necessary, the better off we are.
It occurred to me the other day, the Depression had a large portion of the population found gov't to be "a friend" via FDR and the government "friendly" programs he initiated. Everybody I knew while growing up ( a WHOLE generation) "felt" government was a friend with a solution.
Actually consider government an enemy and all it touches it will corrupt, break, screw up, and destroy.
That formula fits better with reality, IMO.
PeriodThree
08-08-2008, 07:21 PM
The idea of government as enemy of the people is the specific political philosophy of the Republican Party.
The Republicans have intentionally and effectively worked to destroy all effective government programs in an effort to further their political agenda.
I personally think it is self evident that government does not corrupt, break, screw or destroy all that it touches.
The more or less definitive example of this is the military, the largest manifestation of government power.
With some exceptions and abuses the US Military does an amazing job at fulfilling its missions (whether the military should be doing any particular mission is of course a totally different question!)
New Deal programs kept people employed, allowed many farmers to keep their farms, and generally gave Americans the collective tools to get through a difficult period.
It occurred to me the other day, the Depression had a large portion of the population found gov't to be "a friend" via FDR and the government "friendly" programs he initiated. Everybody I knew while growing up ( a WHOLE generation) "felt" government was a friend with a solution.
Actually consider government an enemy and all it touches it will corrupt, break, screw up, and destroy.
That formula fits better with reality, IMO.
Lenny
08-09-2008, 06:23 AM
The idea of government as enemy of the people is the specific political philosophy of the Republican Party. The Republicans have intentionally and effectively worked to destroy all effective government programs in an effort to further their political agenda.
When I first saw the above, I initially thought, "not true", but then I guess you are right according to this day and age of "correct thinking".
I personally think it is self evident that government does not corrupt, break, screw or destroy all that it touches.
Ok. That is what you personally think. I suppose we disagree to some extent. I've seen government housing up close and personal. I don't think that is how whole areas of cities are meant to be cultivated, for example. I've known welfare folks who've been reduced to chattel or simply addicted to the government programs, a few of which stated they wanted to break free and found it difficult. Too many found a way to hustle and get $ around the government teat. You are free to call it Republican philosophy, I call it experience and witnessed it, and though mine is ancedotal, the validity of both our positions can be considered "justified". But then that moves us into statistics, "politics", and fruitless other pursuits, no?
The more or less definitive example of this is the military, the largest manifestation of government power.
With some exceptions and abuses the US Military does an amazing job at fulfilling its missions (whether the military should be doing any particular mission is of course a totally different question!)
Ok, you are right. The military's role in government is the most valid form of government, in that protection of the citizens is paramount. There is no government if the individuals are in a defending/attack mode. Lebanon, Iraq about a year ago, Afghanistan, the Pashtoon Northwest Territory of Pakistan, has or had no government, just tribal warlords fighting everyone.
We agree that the military is the most essential reason for government's existence and the ironic thing is that it's THEIR job to go out and destroy other guys' stuff, or screw it up until they can destroy it! And during peace time they (their "peace" counter parts) are busy trying to "screw up" the other country's situation due to our "national insterest".
New Deal programs kept people employed, allowed many farmers to keep their farms, and generally gave Americans the collective tools to get through a difficult period.
I think here is the heart of our matter and you may have an advantage over me in knowing more about the above.
It is too soon for my review and undestanding, but I do believe that the New Deal wanted to do the above, and the propoganda was that it did the above, but in fact it did not and it is a matter of record that the stagnation of our country continued until WWII, which brought us out of it like a slingshot. It appears that all the other peer countries (Europe, Canada, Austrailia) suffered through a depression, but ours was the worst in duration and severity. The "employment" of the people did nothing to assist in the standard of living, but lasted from the day-one until December, '41, unless they got employment outside the alphabet-government-soup programs.
Of course the commnunists claimed that FDR was a cheat and a stop gap for what "the people's revolutionary mandated". He introduced a type of socialism which did not go far enough for them. To soon to tell, but history will clarify us both in good time.
phooph
08-10-2008, 07:55 PM
You might find this interview with Thomas Frank of interest. He is out flogging his book, The Wrecking Crew, in which he asserts that conservatives have been quite deliberately dismantling the government in order to weaken it to the point where it has no power to hold in check the more rapacious aspects of the commercial sector. This goes along with Grover Norquist's promise to so weaken the government that it could be drowned in a bathtub.
[quote=Lenny;66258]When I first saw the above, I initially thought, "not true", but then I guess you are right according to this day and age of "correct thinking".
Ok. That is what you personally think. I suppose we disagree to some extent. I've seen government housing up close and personal. I don't think that is how whole areas of cities are meant to be cultivated, for example. I've known welfare folks who've been reduced to chattel or simply addicted to the government programs, a few of which stated they wanted to break free and found it difficult. Too many found a way to hustle and get $ around the government teat. You are free to call it Republican philosophy, I call it experience and witnessed it, and though mine is ancedotal, the validity of both our positions can be considered "justified". But then that moves us into statistics, "politics", and fruitless other pursuits, no?
Ok, you are right. The military's role in government is the most valid form of government, in that protection of the citizens is paramount. There is no government if the individuals are in a defending/attack mode. Lebanon, Iraq about a year ago, Afghanistan, the Pashtoon Northwest Territory of Pakistan, has or had no government, just tribal warlords fighting everyone.
We agree that the military is the most essential reason for government's existence and the ironic thing is that it's THEIR job to go out and destroy other guys' stuff, or screw it up until they can destroy it! And during peace time they (their "peace" counter parts) are busy trying to "screw up" the other country's situation due to our "national insterest".
Lenny
08-11-2008, 05:59 AM
You might find this interview with Thomas Frank of interest. He is out flogging his book, The Wrecking Crew, in which he asserts that conservatives have been quite deliberately dismantling the government in order to weaken it to the point where it has no power to hold in check the more rapacious aspects of the commercial sector. This goes along with Grover Norquist's promise to so weaken the government that it could be drowned in a bathtub.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93253890
And here I heard that Marxists simply wanted to have government wither away! So the difference between them could fit in a bathtub? Marat would have argued that. And thanks, and I will read the above.
PeriodThree
08-11-2008, 09:43 AM
And here I heard that Marxists simply wanted to have government wither away! So the difference between them could fit in a bathtub? Marat would have argued that. And thanks, and I will read the above.
Lenny,
This is at least the second time that I know of in which Grover Norquist's 'drown government in a bathtub' quote has been presented to you.
To attempt to turn that around to mean that Marxists and Conservatives are the same is intellectually dishonest of you.
There are many example, as you pointed out, of massive failures in government programs (as there also are massive failures in free market systems).
There are also many examples of successful government programs.
Sadly the modern conservative movement is incapable of accepting that government has any legitimate function beyond defense (and a few other things), and so the Conservatives have worked to, as Norquist said, drown government in a bathtub.
Well, guess what, we found our bathtub: it was New Orleans. The crucible in which the basic anti-government assumptions of conservativism were tested and were found morally bankrupt.
Modern conservatism is a disgusting mix of torture, denial of due process, destruction of civil society, and flat out looting of the people of the United States.
The erudite principles of Buckley are dead. All that are left are thugs.