Filed under: Political Activism
Question:
Great singer, fair actress, so-so business person, political zero.
Decent rack. –Jungemann
Response:
I would like to see a movie about Luby’s Cafeteria and Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp.
I’m working on it, Steve, I’m working on it. Old school make is a lawyer, ex-prosecutor, and writer (including TV movies). I’m trying to get him in touch with Dr. Gratia-Hupp through the NRA. He’s interested in getting the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say. BTW, aren’t these BS fan(atic)s the limpest bunch of know-nothings you’ve ever encountered? If it didn’t fall from the mouth (or some other bodily openning), it simply has no worth to them. Great singer, fair actress, so-so business person, political zero.
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to see a movie about Luby’s Cafeteria and Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. By the way, do you think Barbra Streisand could produce or play the lead role? How could Barbra refuse? She could, and would, refuse because such people and such stories do not help support her personal political agenda. As I have said before, propaganda is the best she can do. Like most Hollywood liberals, she’s too lazy or stupid or both to consider a different viewpoint.
Besides, she’s too old, and not nearly good looking enough, to play Suzzana Gratia-Hupp. Not, err, willowy, enough either, not even 20 years ago. — The Second Amendment is the RESET button of the United States Constitution. Joe Sylvester Don’t Tread On Me !
Response:
You are clever, and your thoughts are appreciated. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I would like to see a movie about Luby’s Cafeteria and Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. I’m working on it, Steve, I’m working on it. Old school make is a lawyer, ex-prosecutor, and writer (including TV movies). I’m trying to get him in touch with Dr. Gratia-Hupp through the NRA. He’s interested in getting the "rest of the story," as Paul Harvey would say. BTW, aren’t these BS fan(atic)s the limpest bunch of know-nothings you’ve ever encountered? If it didn’t fall from the mouth (or some other bodily openning), it simply has no worth to them. Great singer, fair actress, so-so business person, political zero.
Response:
I would like to see a movie about Luby’s Cafeteria and Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. By the way, do you think Barbra Streisand could produce or play the lead role? After all, I would imagine Barbra that would appreciate a real-life strong, intelligent, beautiful, brave woman hero who stood up for her beliefs and overcame adversity and personal tragedy to devote the rest of her life to successful political activism and selfless public service … How could Barbra refuse?
She could, and would, refuse because such people and such stories do not help support her personal political agenda. As I have said before, propaganda is the best she can do. Like most Hollywood liberals, she’s too lazy or stupid or both to consider a different viewpoint. MM — "We examined a whole range of different gun laws as well as other methods of deterrence, such as the death penalty. However, only one policy succeeded in reducing deaths and injuries from [multiple-victim shootings] – allowing law- abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns." – John R. Lott, Jr., Wall Street Journal, 27 March 1998. Since I paid good money for this account, I can have any opinion I want.
Response:
I would like to see a movie about Luby’s Cafeteria and Dr. Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. By the way, do you think Barbra Streisand could produce or play the lead role? After all, I would imagine Barbra that would appreciate a real-life strong, intelligent, beautiful, brave woman hero who stood up for her beliefs and overcame adversity and personal tragedy to devote the rest of her life to successful political activism and selfless public service … How could Barbra refuse? -s
Response:
Question:
apparently mistakes D. C. Sessions (an electrical engineer) for someone else.
Hmm. Although I had nothing to do with the post you were replying to, I must admit that I, too, had been under the misconception for some time that you were a chiropractor. Now, thinking about it, I realize that the D.C. here is just an abbreviation of your name. Perhaps you might consider changing your name to Edward Ernest Sessions. — David Rind
Response:
writes: Oh no, you have to use a blood hound to sniff out a medical doctor who is sensible enough to use chelation, while the rest of them tell you chelation is useless. Or put into practice diet therapy, and not just pay lip service to the idea.
Question:
Mother Teresa fashioned her life according to Jesus. Her actions need no explaining to you or anyone else. She loved and accepted all. Too much for most whinning and accusing mortals who are always ripping someone’s character up to understand!
Response:
One is reminded of the Pharisees protesting Jesus’ dining with a tax collector.
Response:
"The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa in Theory and Practice" by Christopher Hitchens (continued …) Before the war, the ideas of fascism, Catholicism, Albanianism and Albano-Italian unity were closely identified. Afterwards, religious identity was officially suppressed by Hoxha’s proclamation of the ‘world’s first atheist state’. None the less, the evidence implies that irredentist ideology persisted under Stalinist disguise and had at least as much to do with Albania’s foreign-policy alignments as did any supposed doctrinal schism over the canonical texts of Marx and Lenin. An Albanian Catholic nationalist, in other words, might, on ‘patriotic’ questions, still feel loyal to an ostensibly materialist Communist regime. How else are we to explain the following entry from the Yearbook on International Communist Affairs 1990, published by the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and reviewing developments in all countries of the Communist world? After numerous previous attempts to secure a visa had been denied, in August the government allowed Mother Teresa to visit Tirana. … Although the visit was called ‘private,’ Mother Teresa was received by Mrs. Hoxha, Foreign Minister Reis Malile, Minister of Health Ahmet Kamberi, the Chairman of the People’s Assembly Petro Dode, and other state and party officials. Dutifully, the Albanian-born nun and Nobel peace prize laureate placed a wreath at the monument of ‘Mother Albania’ and ‘paid homage and laid a bouquet of flowers on the grave of Comrade Enver Hoxha.’ The world-renowned Catholic nun did not utter a word of criticism against the regime for its brutal suppression of religion. The ‘Mother Albania’ monument, it might be worth emphasizing, is not an abstract symbol of sentimental nationhood. It is the emblem of the cause of Greater Albania. A nearby museum displays the boundaries of this ambition in the form of a map. ‘Mother Albania’ turns out to comprise – in addition to the martyred province of Kosovo – a large piece of Serbia and Montenegro, a substantial chunk of formerly Yugoslav Macedonia and most of that part of modern Greece now known as Epirus. I possess a film of ‘Mother Teresa’ making her homage to ‘Mother Albania’ – as well as to its patron, the pitiless thug Enver Hoxha – and it invites the same question as does the infamous embrace in Haiti: What is a woman of unworldly innocence and charity doing dans cette gale’re? Apologists have said, of the Albanian case, that it was only natural for Mother Teresa to make a few obeisances in order to visit the graves of her ancestors and, of the second, that a few compromises were necessary so that her order would be allowed to work freely in Haiti. Interestingly enough, these are not excuses that have been tendered by Mother Teresa herself, who keeps her own counsel on both matters (and on many others besides). It is at least worth considering whether Mother Teresa made both of these trips (and many others) in further- ance of the more flinty political stands taken by hard-liners in her own Church. The personal conduct and the questionable policy are at least congruent in each instance. In the case of Haiti, the Vatican had long taken a position in favour of the ‘Duvalierist’ oligarchy. When the Reverend Father Jean-Bertrand Aristide began his campaign of charismatic populism against the regime, he encountered instant hostility from the Church hierarchy, which eventually suspended him from his order. By the time that Aristide had been triumphantly elected, ignominiously deposed by a military junta and finally restored to power by international intervention, the Vatican was the only government in the world which still retained formal diplomatic relations with the usurping dictatorship. Mother Teresa’s activism, then, was representative of the most dogmatic line taken by her Church. Similarly in the Balkans, the collapse and disintegration of Yugoslavia led to a recrudescence of essentially prewar rivalries. Croatia, with the support of the Vatican and Germany, declared itself an independent state and restored many of the signs and emblems of the wartime republic led by Ante Pavelic. Protected by the Vatican and the Third Reich, this government had massacred its Jews and embarked on a programme of forced conversion of Orthodox Serbs; those who resisted the crusade had been put to death. This memory alone, and the evident lack of regret for it, contributed to the evolution of a nationalist- religious paranoia among the Serbs, who subsequently launched a war of territorial and sectarian aggrandizement, destroying the cities of Vukovar and Sarajevo in the process. The Croatian ruling party, led by Franjo Tudjman, responded by carving out its own slice of Bosnia and demolishing the city of Mostar. Even more ominously there existed, and still exists, the possibility that a generalized war could destroy the boundaries of the former Yugoslavia and once again pit Catholic against Orthodox as well as both, in various local combinations, against Islam. In Tetovo, the Albanian centre of western Macedonia, and in Kosovo too, local zealots speak of Greater Albania as the response to Greater Serbia, and they flourish their pictures of Mother Teresa. boundaries of the former Yugoslavia and once again pit Catholic against Orthodox as well as both, in various local combinations, against Islam. In Tetovo, the Albanian centre of western Macedonia, and in Kosovo too, local zealots speak of Greater Albania as the response to Greater Serbia, and they flourish their pictures of Mother Teresa. (look out for next chapter soon …)
Response:
Question:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – This is why I have contributed here before saying "please guys, don’t go to work on the FAA looking for more and better rules. You will just get MORE, rules not better ones, which will then give them more leverage to grind us down". The fact that some in the FAA are for us will not stop the more senior policy wonks from using whatever is at hand to further limit our activity. Very good point. Take the sport of Falconing. Have you ever done it? Know anyone that does? Probably not. Why? Because it is so heavily regulated that it is illegal to own a bird without several years apprentiship and then you must be recommended by licensed falconers. The population is going down fast. Make something so restrictive that only a few can participate and soon you will have only a few left. And than there was none. Al Fitzgerald
Not looking for more rules, or better rules. Looking for two people to explain what the rules mean, and have both of them say the same thing. In other words. What does this mean exactly? Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
Something that has come to light on this in a recent General Aviation News on a talk about these new definitions by the FAA brass was that "if the plans call for the builder to build 30 ribs then the builder must build 30 ribs". I read this to mean that if the plans say you do it, then you do it. I do agree though that having a qualified welder doing your tube structure is a VERY good idea. So. What’s a person to do.
Some how I don’t see us (EAA’ers) and the suppliers just setting back and letting the FAA do this. This is insane!! Another g** d**m government agency going power crazy!!! (sorry about the language). Does anyone have any idea of the economic impact of this? That goes all the way down to waiter at the coffee shop at the Podunk County Airport Open House. I’m not defending the "build-yer-plane-for-you" bunch, but the component builders, etc. I’m one person that thinks it’s insane to build an aerobatic airplane fuselage as a beginner’s first time welding project!
Response:
[some space saving words deleted] Some how I don’t see us (EAA’ers) and the suppliers just setting back and letting the FAA do this. This is insane!! Another g** d**m government agency going power crazy!!! (sorry about the language). Does anyone have any idea of the economic impact of this? That goes all the way down to waiter at the coffee shop at the Podunk County Airport Open House. I’m not defending the "build-yer-plane-for-you" bunch, but the component builders, etc. I’m one person that thinks it’s insane to build an aerobatic airplane fuselage as a beginner’s first time welding project!
Well said. If we take things as they are for gospel, then hiring someone to paint it, wire the avionics, or install the guages would be a violation if the FAA wanted to thump you even if they were an AP. I, like you, have never approved of someone building the entire aircraft for someone, and we don’t. A good example. Recently Stan Montgomery embarked on a venture to supply wing kits for E-Racers. I for one would rather have a pre molded wing kit than the foam and slather routine of a moldless construction. Now. The question is "would this be a violation of the 51% rule?" I spoke to Ben Owen yesterday, and a copy of the draft of the AC "clearifying" the 51% rule is on the way. If it’s no to large I’ll re-key it in here. Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
Dear Dirk, and others, It will serve no purpose for you and I to debate what is the "right" way to pursue a political goal. Everyone has their own ideas, and rarely convince another to change theirs. My point here is much more pragmatic. The FAA does not and will not respond according to some clear and definable logic flow. Their mission and structure just make it entirely impossible. What we have now are regulations which have their root in a much more logical time. They will eventually change, and it will be for the worse, as regards the extent of the freedoms and flexibilities we enjoy in sport aviation. We can rant and rave against it, but that quiet voice in the back of your head tells you this is so. So, what can we do? Very little. The best we can do is to slow down change. Any change will be for the worse. That is not what we desire, nor something which can be avoided. If we agitate, it will speed up the creation of more rules. More rules will result in less flexibility. Our regs operate essentially under the theory that what is not prohibited is allowed. The thinking of our government, however, is increasingly the reverse of this. The only way we can change this is a sea change in the temperament of our government. By all means, vote. I certainly do. Trying to persuade the FAA to be reasonable is like trying to get a bear to play the piano. You aren’t going to hear any concertos, the bear will just get pissed off, and the piano tends to get ruined. Sorry about that. Political activism in this arena will always be counter productive. Don
Response:
Dear Dirk, and others, It will serve no purpose for you and I to debate what is the "right" way to pursue a political goal. Everyone has their own ideas, and rarely convince another to change theirs.
I’m not looking for a debate either. In fact I had not considered this a debate at all. I consider it a discussion to make people aware of the changes, and for them to offer their input in the hopes that the changes can be directed to the best possible end for all. My point here is much more pragmatic. The FAA does not and will not respond according to some clear and definable logic flow. Their mission and structure just make it entirely impossible. What we have now are regulations which have their root in a much more logical time. They will eventually change, and it will be for the worse, as regards the extent of the freedoms and flexibilities we enjoy in sport aviation. We can rant and rave against it, but that quiet voice in the back of your head tells you this is so.
They would change for the worse in any event of course. But. To use some poor english, how worse is worse? and do you believe that we have no input into the outcome? So, what can we do? Very little. The best we can do is to slow down change. Any change will be for the worse. That is not what we desire, nor something which can be avoided. If we agitate, it will speed up the creation of more rules. More rules will result in less flexibility.
I think you got lost on my intent. Certain people (not FAA) are trying to get the change made, and I feel we should be more involved. I’m contending that we need more detail (as do these other mentioned people) in the existing rules. Will they come out the way we want them to? Of course not. But they will be less than what we want if we are not involved. Our regs operate essentially under the theory that what is not prohibited is allowed. The thinking of our government, however, is increasingly the reverse of this. The only way we can change this is a sea change in the temperament of our government. By all means, vote. I certainly do. Trying to persuade the FAA to be reasonable is like trying to get a bear to play the piano. You aren’t going to hear any concertos, the bear will just get pissed off, and the piano tends to get ruined.
Voting is fine, but being involved is also necessary. I can’t and don’t expect my elected officials to do it all for me, and if we are not also involved how will they know what we want? Sorry about that. Political activism in this arena will always be counter productive. Don
You seem to have a bit of a defeatist view Don. Please do not take that as a cheap shot. It is not intended as such. If the FAA will do it by themselves, it will be only what they want. We can’t of course force them, but we can swing it in our favor. However little that may be in the end. Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
This last weekend we attended the Aircraft Spruce/Kitplanes builders conference in the Portland area. The start of the conference was a Q and A on to the panel which consisted of Dave Martin from Kitplanes, Dick Vangrunsven from Vans, two reps from Kitfox, a rep from Columbia helicopters, a rep from Velocity, and another company that escapes me. Some of the reps actually got in a few words in between Dick V. and the hot topic was the 51% rule. Dick indicated that it was required for the person to compleet 51% of the aircraft for the cert. A few minutes later the panel was asked if a person purchases a partialy built kit can he be eligable for the cert and Dick stated yes. This indicates to me that not even the heavy hitters can agree (even with themselves) what the 51% rule implies. Now another point of interest. Durring this panel discussion Dave Martin indicated that Kitplanes and Vans Aircraft were among those who are working with the FAA to change/redefine the rules to be more precise, and create a checklist of things that had to be accomplished and documented in order to comply. Does anyone have, or know of, any further info on this? Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
Keep track of the hours YOU invest in the project and what those hours accomplished. The "kit" manufacturer has an "equivalent hours" table that tell things like "40 hours for factory build of the wing spar". If you buy the spar, add "40 hours" to the "bought" category. If you build the spar, add your hours (80… 400) to the "builder" category. This document that you create will more than suffice for the FAA to give you the 51% privileges. — Hewlett-Packard, 3404 East Harmony Rd MS-E8, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599 C-182 N182H, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA Denver FSDO Aviation Safety Counselor CO-CAP Group 2 Cmdr, MSN CheckPilot, PP218 HAM N0FZD, 29 Young Eagles Flown!
Good work, and a great acomplishment. -j-
Response:
I had a fairly rude epiphany last year while involved with the FAA, EAA, et al in the re-write of the Experimental-Exhibition regulations, or actually the inspectors’ hand book, which they consider regulatory. The discovery was that the FAA is not proceeding in a direction which coincides with the sport pilot’s, or the aviation "experimentalists" future. It is not clear to me that there is an official internal agenda which mandates getting rid of all of us, but their stream of logic certainly suggests this. (I really dislike conspiricy theorists, it serves little purpose, after all). Anyway, all this debate about "The Rules" is being had out here in the real world, and is completely unattached to what the FAA is doing. Worse, even if we assume that the FAA would like to do something helpful, the fact is that those in the position to make policy now are so far removed from the people and time that wrote our current rules that their interpretations share no common ground. Case in point: Their thinking in the debate over the Exp-Exhibition stuff all revolved around the "Intent" of the regulations, ie: that any airplane certificated under them must be built and/or operated consistent with the "intent" implied under the FARs. Therefore, an Exhibition airplane MUST be operated solely for exhibition purposes. I had many a debate with relatively senior FAA personnel in which they were adamant that such an aircraft must not be operated for pleasure. They truly objected to any idea that the pilot/owner/operator should be allowed to operate an Exhibition aircraft purely for recreation, and that it MUST be flown strictly to, and from, and at, exhibitions, which they also tended to define rather narrowly. I could make this much longer, but these people were also up front in saying that the FAR’s which allow experimental aircraft may be unconstitutional. Their thinking was that 1) congress created the FAA with the specific mission to insure safety in aviation, 2) the FAA wrote regulations for Experimental aircraft which specifically state that they "do not comply with safety regulations for Standard Aircraft", so that 3) this was tantamount to a governmental agency writing its own rule that exempted it from meeting the specific assignment for which it was created. Kind of like the police writing a little rule that exempted them from enforcing the prostitution laws. The laws are written, and they don’t get to pick the ones to enforce. The net of this is that there is quite a group at the FAA which think that Experimental aircraft should not exist, so they are busy finding ways to interpret the current rules in ever-restrictive ways, which is probably easier than getting a consensus to re-write the rules. This is why I have contributed here before saying "please guys, don’t go to work on the FAA looking for more and better rules. You will just get MORE, rules not better ones, which will then give them more leverage to grind us down". The fact that some in the FAA are for us will not stop the more senior policy wonks from using whatever is at hand to further limit our activity. The next step will probably be to enforce that all Amateur built aircraft are built strictly for "educational purposes", which they will interpret as being an officially designated school. Operational limits won’t be far behind. Mind you, I am not an FAA basher. I actually have a lot of respect for the vast majority of the field guys and gals I have met and worked with. I just think we are butting up against a governmental beaureacracy which doesn’t have a clue, and is busy inventing and interpreting rules to support their individual and personal prejudices. It’s beyond our reach, and pervasive. Enjoy while you can. It’s going away. Don
Response:
I have to admit I am near the point of panic following this thread. Now, is this a "kit" plane? No, it is not a kit plane. Am I following the rule? Well, there is an awful hell of a lot more airplane to build, not to mention jigs to line everything up. How in the hell does anyone know what is 51%. It has taken me 80 hrs to put together three quarter of the ribs. Yes, I purchased a lot of already-made big parts. But like I said, there is a hell of a lot more airplane to build. Someone mentioned that the FAA has a table for calculating points to determine what constitutes 51%. I have never heard of such a document and sure would like to know where I can get one!
Keep track of the hours YOU invest in the project and what those hours accomplished. The "kit" manufacturer has an "equivalent hours" table that tell things like "40 hours for factory build of the wing spar". If you buy the spar, add "40 hours" to the "bought" category. If you build the spar, add your hours (80… 400) to the "builder" category. This document that you create will more than suffice for the FAA to give you the 51% privileges. — Hewlett-Packard, 3404 East Harmony Rd MS-E8, Ft Collins, CO 80525-9599 C-182 N182H, CFII Airplane & Glider, FAA Denver FSDO Aviation Safety Counselor CO-CAP Group 2 Cmdr, MSN CheckPilot, PP218 HAM N0FZD, 29 Young Eagles Flown!
Response:
(Stamper123) writes: This is why I have contributed here before saying "please guys, don’t go to work on the FAA looking for more and better rules. You will just get MORE, rules not better ones, which will then give them more leverage to grind us down". The fact that some in the FAA are for us will not stop the more senior policy wonks from using whatever is at hand to further limit our
activity. Very good point. Take the sport of Falconing. Have you ever done it? Know anyone that does? Probably not. Why? Because it is so heavily regulated that it is illegal to own a bird without several years apprentiship and then you must be recommended by licensed falconers. The population is going down fast. Make something so restrictive that only a few can participate and soon you will have only a few left. And than there was none. Al Fitzgerald
Response:
Now, is this a "kit" plane? No, it is not a kit plane. Am I following the rule? Well, there is an awfull hell of a lot more airplane to build, not to mention jigs to line everything up.
My opinion only: Even with quick build kits or hired "experts" to do some part of the airplane construction such as, in your case, welding critical components, there is SO much detail work in an airplane that you will still be doing more than 50% of the actual construction. Remember the old addage: "When it looks like you are 90% done you still have 90% of the work left to do". There’s just lots to do even if the major components are already done. Consider the Vari-ez’s and Cozy’s and Velocity’s, once the major components are done like the wings and fuselage, there remains hours upon hours of sanding and filling and spraying and sanding etc etc. Some people spend as much as 1000 hours or more just sanding and finishing. In any kit that has two halves of wings to put together, you still need to run wiring, cables or push tubes, hang flaps and ailerons, install fuel tanks or fabricate them then you have to put the two halves together and make sure everything fits and works. That’s a lot of work! And we aren’t even talking about the engine installation or instrument panel wiring and instrument hook up. These are major time users too. Corky Scott
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -My opinion only: Even with quick build kits or hired "experts" to do some part of the airplane construction such as, in your case, welding critical components, there is SO much detail work in an airplane that you will still be doing more than 50% of the actual construction. Remember the old addage: "When it looks like you are 90% done you still have 90% of the work left to do". There’s just lots to do even if the major components are already done. Consider the Vari-ez’s and Cozy’s and Velocity’s, once the major components are done like the wings and fuselage, there remains hours upon hours of sanding and filling and spraying and sanding etc etc. Some people spend as much as 1000 hours or more just sanding and finishing. In any kit that has two halves of wings to put together, you still need to run wiring, cables or push tubes, hang flaps and ailerons, install fuel tanks or fabricate them then you have to put the two halves together and make sure everything fits and works. That’s a lot of work! And we aren’t even talking about the engine installation or instrument panel wiring and instrument hook up. These are major time users too. Corky Scott
Something that has come to light on this in a recent General Aviation News on a talk about these new definitions by the FAA brass was that "if the plans call for the builder to build 30 ribs then the builder must build 30 ribs". I read this to mean that if the plans say you do it, then you do it. I do agree though that having a qualified welder doing your tube structure is a VERY good idea. So. What’s a person to do. I’m trying to get ahold of the AC that covers this. Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
This is one of my favorite discussion topics, but I now hesitate to get involved after having a problem articulating issues. There is the PLANE and there is the BUILDER. Planes get Certified. Builders get repairmen certificates. PLANES need to be over 50% "amateur" built to be certified. Since many BD-5s (for example) have been certified, and Jim won’t build one for me, I shouldn’t have any trouble convincing the Feds that the BD-5 PLANE in question (mine, if I finish it) was built from a kit. Since I did the majority of the building, and specified the subcontracted/purchased parts, and assembled the plane, took pics, etc. I should not have any trouble getting a repairman’s certificate even though many "somebody elses" did some of the work. These discussions get fun when we have "semi-pros" building custom planes for people who: Don’t really build the plane themselves and who used a professional (paid) shop to complete the plane. What makes me different than the Doctor who pays for someone to build him a Lancair? We both used "subs", we both took a kit from less than 50% to completion. We both spent a few Saturdays in the shop making parts. I don’t want this question to be answered, I just want to be able to build and fly and repair my own plane. It is not for me to judge whether this "Doctor" in my example is less deserving.
Response:
I have to admit I am near the point of panic following this thread. I am a first time builder constructing a 10G hard aerobatic airplane. Since I do not know how to weld, and after much discussion with other builders, I thought it prudent to have the engine mount, fuse and tail surface truse work done by an experienced, reputible builder of this particular airplane. I also purchased a wing "kit". The "kit" is pretty much materials except for the spar. With respect to the spar, an obvious critical component of this airplane as well as all others, the "prudent" rule applied. This is not a simple Baby Ace spar. According to my spread sheet, constructing and preparing the rib jigs consitutes 50% of the effort to build a rib. And this is before sandpaper touches fiber. Now, is this a "kit" plane? No, it is not a kit plane. Am I following the rule? Well, there is an awfull hell of a lot more airplane to build, not to mention jigs to line everything up. How in the hell does anyone know what is 51%. It has taken me 80 hrs to put together three quarter of the ribs. I am ball-parking the basic wing at 400 hrs. And that does not include controls, skinning, aligning and attaching to the fuse, surfacing and painting. I am sure it did not take the well equiped pro more than 40 hrs to build an absolutely beautiful massive spar. Yes, I purchased a lot of already-made big parts. But like I said, there is a hell of a lot more airplane to build. Someone mentioned that the FAA has a table for calculating points to determine what constitutes 51%. I have never heard of such a document and sure would like to know where I can get one! Rick
Response:
All this debate about what is, and what is not, legal sounds very much like the famous debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…. It is gratuitous and solves nothing. The aviation regulations historically assumed that the pilot in command (or mechanic) was inherently trying to do the right thing, and was to be guided by the regs, not necessarily bound up tight by them. This wise approach is not well understood by the FAA now, and is all too rare even among pilots, who seem to get some strange delight in conducting a debate rather than the greater pleasure of flying or building. That no two FAA inspectors do not exactly agree on an interpretation of the rules does not mean that they are broke. It means that they require constant interpretation and application to specific instances. Any effort on our part to get more specific rules will result in less flexibility. Period. It cannot be otherwise. Bottom line. Under the current rules, you can end up with a very nice, and acceptably safe aircraft which will say "Experimental" on the side. You may use this aircraft for a lot of good and fun things other than generating revenue or compensation. It may require some quiet interaction with your local FSDO or DAE, but so what? No problem. Leave it alone. The more we stir this heap, the more it looks wet and smelly on the inside. There is no win to come from kicking it over. Don
Response:
All this debate about what is, and what is not, legal sounds very much like the famous debate of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin…. It is gratuitous and solves nothing.
Then you propose that we not get involved in the process of regulations that effect us? I fail to see how not being involved in the decisions that effect our aircraft and our flying is the right thing to do. We can be involved now, or whine about the result after the fact. The aviation regulations historically assumed that the pilot in command (or mechanic) was inherently trying to do the right thing, and was to be guided by the regs, not necessarily bound up tight by them. This wise approach is not well understood by the FAA now, and is all too rare even among pilots, who seem to get some strange delight in conducting a debate rather than the greater pleasure of flying or building.
If we are just being guided, and can use our own interpretation of the regs, then there would be no problem telling the FAA when they bust you "I thought it meant this that or the other thing". Right? We are bound by the regs, not "guided". That no two FAA inspectors do not exactly agree on an interpretation of the rules does not mean that they are broke. It means that they require constant interpretation and application to specific instances. Any effort on our part to get more specific rules will result in less flexibility. Period. It cannot be otherwise.
It does mean they are broke if one FAA man can say "that’s cool" and the next one can say "your busted" Bottom line. Under the current rules, you can end up with a very nice, and acceptably safe aircraft which will say "Experimental" on the side. You may use this aircraft for a lot of good and fun things other than generating revenue or compensation. It may require some quiet interaction with your local FSDO or DAE, but so what?
And the above would be determined by the person "interpreting" the rules. No problem. Leave it alone. The more we stir this heap, the more it looks wet and smelly on the inside. There is no win to come from kicking it over.
It’s not us that is stiring it up. The process is already in motion. I’m contending that we need to be involved in the process so as to not have a WORSE situation than we have now. Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
[my original question deleted] – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -: While talking with some employees of a local kitplane manufacturer, : this same subject came up. I think that this is long overdue, but it : may cause trouble for those who want to purchase a partially finished : homebuilt. There will be no "new rules," just a redefining of the : rules that exist. This could mean that a person would be required to : complete 51% of the kit himself, instead of having a kit that is 49% : from the factory. : Of course, one could always buy a kit that was 25% completed by : another builder, then modify the design enough to require 38% more : work than the original design. : RN Just what we need – fixing something that isn’t broken!
It is broke, and badly. If five people all read it and all feel that it says something different, it is broke. I listened to Dick Vangrunsven object (ambiguously) to someone else doing work on your aircraft. Yet a company in my area builds spars for the RV series for costomers. Let me ask you this. As the regs read now do you feel that buying someone elses partially built kit for anything more than what the materials are worth is or is not in violation of the regs? Dirk [sig deleted] | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
[my stuff deleted] While talking with some employees of a local kitplane manufacturer, this same subject came up. I think that this is long overdue, but it may cause trouble for those who want to purchase a partially finished homebuilt. There will be no "new rules," just a redefining of the rules that exist. This could mean that a person would be required to complete 51% of the kit himself, instead of having a kit that is 49% from the factory.
Maybe we should all be looking in this before some people shoot us all in the foot. Making partially built kits undesireable may jack up the cost of new ones. Dirk | Vortecs Aircraft Anything! Given sufficient | Vancouver, WA _ propulsion will fly.
Response:
writes: : (…deleted majority of post…) : …Kitplanes and Vans Aircraft were among those who are working : with the FAA to change/redefine the rules to be more precise, and create a : checklist of things that had to be accomplished and documented in order to : comply. Does anyone have, or know of, any further info on this?
Someone else replied: : …There will be no "new rules," just a redefining of the : rules that exist. This could mean that a person would be required to : complete 51% of the kit himself, instead of having a kit that is 49% : from the factory.
<snip : RN
There is an article describing the *clarification* in GEN. AVIATION NEWS, August 4,1995 edition, Sport Flyer section, pg.SF-5. In brief, the article paraphrases a FAA advisory stating that the homebuilder MUST build 51% or more of the aircraft. Hired professional help is a no-no. The exception to this is a professional may be hired to ADVISE the builder. "But if the plans call for the builder to make 30 wing ribs, we’re expecting the builder to build 30 wing ribs (himself)," said Michael Gallagher, FAA, Manager of Production and Airworthiness Certification Division. Additionally, it is also permissable to utilize building centers. The article also states that owners falsely attesting to personally building his plane fases a max. fine of $10,000 and/or 5 yrs in the klink. When someone questioned the 51% rule and the additional safety that hired professionals would contribute, the general audience opposed altering the rules. Altering the rules brought out concern over whether the revision might lead to greater restrictions on us. My personal views are that there could still be a significant loop hole even with the *clarification*. It seems to me that a builder could still significantly reduce his building time by purchasing/contracting ready made components. i.e. a builder could buy ready-made spars, precisely cut ribs, and assembled and sealed fuel cells just as he would buy a complete engine or instrument panel. There would still be the assembling to complete, and I feel that this is still within the spirit of the experimental class rules as the builder will still LEARN the important aspects of aircraft construction. I do, however, feel that purchasing a completed wing or tail feathers is going WAY too far. T. Scott Welch **my opinions. Don’t give a S*** what my employer thinks!** ** **I want to die like my grandfather, peacefully, in his sleep… …unlike his passengers.
Response:
: (…deleted majority of post…) : Now another point of interest. Durring this panel discussion Dave Martin : indicated that Kitplanes and Vans Aircraft were among those who are working : with the FAA to change/redefine the rules to be more precise, and create a : checklist of things that had to be accomplished and documented in order to : comply. Does anyone have, or know of, any further info on this? : Dirk : While talking with some employees of a local kitplane manufacturer, : this same subject came up. I think that this is long overdue, but it : may cause trouble for those who want to purchase a partially finished : homebuilt. There will be no "new rules," just a redefining of the : rules that exist. This could mean that a person would be required to : complete 51% of the kit himself, instead of having a kit that is 49% : from the factory. : Of course, one could always buy a kit that was 25% completed by : another builder, then modify the design enough to require 38% more : work than the original design. : RN Just what we need – fixing something that isn’t broken! Bruce A. Frank, "Ford 3.8L Engine and V-6 STOL (-o-) / AIRCRAFT PROJECTS CO. _____/ / O O
Response:
(…deleted majority of post…) Now another point of interest. Durring this panel discussion Dave Martin indicated that Kitplanes and Vans Aircraft were among those who are working with the FAA to change/redefine the rules to be more precise, and create a checklist of things that had to be accomplished and documented in order to comply. Does anyone have, or know of, any further info on this? Dirk
While talking with some employees of a local kitplane manufacturer, this same subject came up. I think that this is long overdue, but it may cause trouble for those who want to purchase a partially finished homebuilt. There will be no "new rules," just a redefining of the rules that exist. This could mean that a person would be required to complete 51% of the kit himself, instead of having a kit that is 49% from the factory. Of course, one could always buy a kit that was 25% completed by another builder, then modify the design enough to require 38% more work than the original design. RN
Response:
Question:
WHAT IS CONFLUENCE? Confluence is a national publication issued on a more or less quarterly basis… So, if you
Question:
=o= Reminder: This thread is an open-ended political discussion, not a resource for activists. Please don’t cross-post this thread to alt.activism anymore. =o= If you are unfamiliar with such things as editing headers to avoid cross-posts, I recommend that you read messages in news.announce.newusers. Cross-posting to many newsgroups is generally frowned upon because it leads to numerous followups that aren’t relevant to every newsgroup the message was originally posted to. =o= Cross-posting from groups in the "talk.*" hierarchy is to be avoided in particular. That hierarchy exists for discussion of topics that are known to generate long and voluminous threads. Folks interested in those threads can subscribe to those newsgroups; folks not interested in those threads shouldn’t need to wade through them when they’re cross-posted to other newsgroups. <_Jym_
Response:
The following letter was never answered or published. I wonder why? Doctress Neutopia
<shit snipped My research into mythology indicates that the incestuous mother/son relationship seems to be the basis of our species’ immorality. Incest is missing from your book’s index. So is love. The taboo about incest would seem to include not trying to point it out in our daily lives. The transformative energy of love is certainly the issue which seems to be the social taboo in the mass media.
<shit snipped It has certainly led me to greater truth and understanding of the nature of love, sex, and the Oedipus complex. Of course, I can not predict what the outcome of the court case will be.
<snip A restraining order so that I, the stinky woman, can’t speak to him in public? An order that I am not allowed to send him any more of my thought provoking essays which challenge his sexist virgin birth theory on the planetary reproduction?
<snip Since judges have the power to declare one insane, and hence, lock one away and administer poisonous drugs, it is very dangerous to present nonconformist ideas to a court of law which demands one to salute the flag and swear to tell the whole truth by placing one’s hand on the "Holy" Bible.
<snip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anyone who has read my epistle to Dorion, "True love Instead of World War," knows that this case is much, much deeper than a common harassment of the opposite sex! This is a trial about an attempt to metamorphose a member of the male gender into a monarch butterfly. But the creeping caterpillar doesn’t want to admit he has something vitally important to learn from her. This is also a trial about a mother/son team of scholars who have refused to be open minded and let new people contribute to the gaian movement. Consequently, this is a trial about the downfall of civilized scholarship. The prayer for all life on earth is that the Goddess Medusa will be triumphant over Zeus’ daughter Athena so that justice will once again rule Gaia with the everlasting bliss of erotic love. Great Ideas Change the World, Doctor Neutopia cc Dorion Sagan, Carl Sagan, John Brockman, Omni Magazine, New York Times Review of Books, The Village Voice, Scientific American.
Gee, I don’t know, Doc…..makes sense to me. So who specifically are you accusing of an incestous relationship? And WHY don’t you go home to visit Mommy & Daddy anymore? Just asking. — …all you pretty pretenders, negligent vendors aren’t you precious inside i have no need of anger with intimate strangers and i got nothing to hide…
Response:
: I personally think that the quality of the Doctresses writing ha : improved and find the increased sexual touch a truly inspired : way to build audience. I beg her to continue and continue and : continue …. for as long as there is an Internet. : – Andrea "kiba" Chen – : Andrea, you are Goddess! Love, Neutopia
Response:
Libby Hubbard has combined the Anglo-Saxon "-ess" or "-tress" ending (cf "seamstress") with a Latin root word (not unheard of since we have actors and actresses), to form "doctress". In good-old Anglo-Saxon, "Doctress" could mean either "haircut" (dock + tress) or "she who cuts". Take your pick.
I was under the impression the original Anglo-Saxon for "she who cuts" was "Bobbit". (Sorry, too easy, couldn’t resist) — Evolution Doesn’t Take Prisoners:Lizard Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why most of them should die, soon!
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, now "Doctress" — you’ve already confessed (effectively) to being a hoax. Pushing the joke any further changes you from a truly ingenious parodist of the radical left into a one-joke wonder. This is incorrect. The doctress is an artificial persona like a character in a novel. She creates art based on that persona. She is also taking part in a neu neu topian test which predicted that even after being clearly exposed, people will still believe she is "real". Indeed we can speculate that like some cults who find the space people don’t show up on a certain day, some people will actually have their faith (which usually takes the doctres for a demon) strengthened by the exposure.
Hm. An interesting point. But it eliminates *my* idea of fun — watching her sincere believers collapse when they are told, point blank, their goddess has been playing them for a sucker the whole time. Lizard loves the sight of ideals being smashed. (I especially enjoyed 1993, when hordes of eager young first time voters learned Bill Clinton was just another politico after all) And, of course, it doesn’t work if *I* say it — it has to be HER. I personally think that the quality of the Doctresses writing ha improved and find the increased sexual touch a truly inspired way to build audience.
Disagree. If anything, it destroys what apparent credibility she once had. Granted, if I was still MSTing her regularly, I’d cheer for all the new raw material, but I’ve stopped that. If I don’t *mean* it, it isn’t fun. I can’t genuinely hate someone who managed to trick me so brilliantly for so long. Whoever "she" is (and I have some ideas, now), I respect her, as one coyote to another. I beg her to continue and continue and continue …. for as long as there is an Internet.
Lizard shall…refrain from comment, for the nonce. — Evolution Doesn’t Take Prisoners:Lizard Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why most of them should die, soon!
Response:
Doctress? Inventing words? Doctor is gender neutral. A feeble attempt to confuse the readers
Nonsense. "Doctor" is a masculine, third-declension noun ("teacher"). The correct feminine form is "doctrix". Compare "aviator", "aviatrix"; "computor", "computrix"; "refrigerator", "refrigeratrix", &c. Libby Hubbard has combined the Anglo-Saxon "-ess" or "-tress" ending (cf "seamstress") with a Latin root word (not unheard of since we have actors and actresses), to form "doctress". In good-old Anglo-Saxon, "Doctress" could mean either "haircut" (dock + tress) or "she who cuts". Take your pick. :Karl "Scatman" Chief MTN Sanitation Engineer – Kids, remember: Etymology by sound is not sound etymology! —
Response:
Libby Hubbard has combined the Anglo-Saxon "-ess" or "-tress" ending (cf "seamstress") with a Latin root word
Is Libby related to L. Ron Hubbard? — Ron Newman MIT Media Laboratory
Response:
Question:
: Truth is subjective. You only *think* truth is subjective. : Higher Education, an oxymoron for the deluded. : I’ll stick with my masters since it won’t pay any better to go any further. Perhaps an extension class in basic epistomology would be in order…
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now, now "Doctress" — you’ve already confessed (effectively) to being a hoax. Pushing the joke any further changes you from a truly ingenious parodist of the radical left into a one-joke wonder. Why not create a far-right persona next time? You know, I’ve also been considering this; is "Doctress Neutopia" just a long satire on the far left. I apologise to her if this is not a joke, but some of her writing leads me to wonder. [Examples and commentary deleted] If it is a satire, whoever is doing it sure is putting a lot of effort into it. The good Doctress’ dissertation is available in its entirety by ftp or gopher at etext.archive.umich.edu, if anybody is so bored as to care to peruse it. Writing a dissertation as part of a satire that has gone on for months seems to be to be a bit over the top.
Assuming it is a single person doing it. But any small group of people could easily manage the Doctress’ inherently self-contradictory style. Further, it would not be excessive if the whole thing were (as I’m beginning to believe) a *genuine* academic study — of human gullibility, willingness to believe what they want to believe in light of contrary evidence, etc. Like I said — I was fooled for a long time. If I had not run on the assumption that radical lefties are as dumb as I like to imagine them as being, I would *not* have been fooled for as long. "Doctress Neutopia" is exactly what I would imagine her ilk to be — which is a god tip off she’s not for real. — Evolution Doesn’t Take Prisoners:Lizard Democracy:The Crude Leading the Crud:Florence King Misanthropology:The study of why so many people are so stupid, and why most of them should die, soon!
Response:
=o= Reminder: This thread is an open-ended political discussion, not a resource for activists. Please don’t cross-post this thread to alt.activism anymore. =o= If you are unfamiliar with such things as editing headers to avoid cross-posts, I recommend that you read messages in news.announce.newusers. Cross-posting to many newsgroups is generally frowned upon because it leads to numerous followups that aren’t relevant to every newsgroup the message was originally posted to. =o= Cross-posting from groups in the "talk.*" hierarchy is to be avoided in particular. That hierarchy exists for discussion of topics that are known to generate long and voluminous threads. Folks interested in those threads can subscribe to those newsgroups; folks not interested in those threads shouldn’t need to wade through them when they’re cross-posted to other newsgroups. <_Jym_
Response:
: : [i.e. Refusing to accept my manuscript on the ethics of Gaia could be : : considered another indication of the lack of morality within the : : movement.] : : It’s immoral not to read my writing? She can’t be serious. : Yes, for Lynn and Dorion I believe it was *immoral* to ignore my work. : After all, I was writing about them and their theory. I was coming up : with new and poetic ideas on the Gaia Theory that they didn’t want to : read about. For a scholar to ignore truth is immoral. : Doctress Neutopia Oh, please! I’m sure that they have more important things to do than read what someone else has to say about their theory. Say, like, doing -original- work…. authors do not need to read their critics to know that they are pleased by what they have written. If you are pleased by what you have written on the gaia theory, then your work clearly has intrinsic value of some kind… just don’t expect everyone to appreciate that value and if they have no interest in reading your work then perhaps you should be writing for another audience. No one is obliged to treat your work as valuable, just as you are not obliged to treat anyone elses work as valuable. Perhaps you just dont have much credibility with your audience (I’m sure they would ignore me if I wrote to them with a critique of their work, or even if I sent them new ideas based on their work. If they did, they would spend all their time responding to such posts and have no time for original work of their own — |Sanity is the exception -not- the rule | Scott Gilbert | |
Response:
: [i.e. Refusing to accept my manuscript on the ethics of Gaia could be : considered another indication of the lack of morality within the : movement.] : It’s immoral not to read my writing? She can’t be serious. Yes, for Lynn and Dorion I believe it was *immoral* to ignore my work. After all, I was writing about them and their theory. I was coming up with new and poetic ideas on the Gaia Theory that they didn’t want to read about. For a scholar to ignore truth is immoral. Doctress Neutopia
Response:
If it is a satire, whoever is doing it sure is putting a lot of effort into it. The good Doctress’ dissertation is available in its entirety by ftp or gopher at etext.archive.umich.edu, if anybody is so bored as to care to peruse it. Writing a dissertation as part of a satire that has gone on for months seems to be to be a bit over the top. A dissertation? To which university was it submitted and accepted? Enquring minds want to know. 
The University of Massachusetts-Amherst. It’s for a doctorate in education. She also has her baccalaureate and masters from the same fine institution. Her committee members are listed on the title page. And yes, she passed the defense. A clarification: the dissertation is located in pub/Politics/Neutopians. Later… — | "Life without music is simply an error, a strain, an exile" — Nietzsche |
Response:
Yes, for Lynn and Dorion I believe it was *immoral* to ignore my work. After all, I was writing about them and their theory. I was coming up with new and poetic ideas on the Gaia Theory that they didn’t want to read about. For a scholar to ignore truth is immoral. Doctress Neutopia
Truth is subjective. Higher Education, an oxymoron for the deluded. I’ll stick with my masters since it won’t pay any better to go any further.
Response:
: It’s immoral not to read my writing? She can’t be serious. Yes, for Lynn and Dorion I believe it was *immoral* to ignore my work. After all, I was writing about them and their theory. I was coming up with new and poetic ideas on the Gaia Theory that they didn’t want to read about. For a scholar to ignore truth is immoral. Doctress Neutopia
So….whatever I write about you, you have to read it and respond to it. Otherwise, you are immoral. Cool. I think that by allowing yourself to be used by your false vision and by the manipulating fellow grad students around you that you have dug yourself into such a big psychic hole that your only chance at a cure is to cancel your account, and stay away from your computer for six months. When you log back on, use a different account. And start eating some red meat. The lack of protein isn’t helping your shaky thought processess. — …all you pretty pretenders, negligent vendors aren’t you precious inside i have no need of anger with intimate strangers and i got nothing to hide…
Response:
Question:
=o= Please, folks, open-ended political ecological discussion isn’t what alt.activism is intended for. Please consider using talk.environment for that, as that *is* a newsgroup intended for such discussion. <_Jym_
Response:
Response:
You know, it is really quite amusing the things that environmentalism gets the blame for. This thread makes about as much sense as "thanks to the environmentalists, that tree didn’t get cut down, and that skier ran into it, so the environmentalists are guilty of murder." How about the arsonists who actually set most of the fires? Gee, I guess maybe they were all environmentalists too. ;-) Live Long and Prosper, Shawn | Shawn Miller, Graduate Research Assistant and Aspiring Musician | | Phone: (303)-492-8868 (lab) or (303)-492-0488 (grad office) | | Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research | | University of Colorado, Boulder CO 80309 | | Campus Box 431 |
Response:
It seems to me that a reference to what environmentalists did relative to fire prevention prevention could be made precise by reference to lawsuits filed by environmental organizations, e.g. Sierra Club. I do not have this information. — John McCarthy, Computer Science Department, Stanford, CA 94305 * He who refuses to do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense.
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Environmental Disaster — editorial: Orange County Register One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species except the human. Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could have stopped it." But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. This stupidity isn’t limited to Souther Cal. Restrictions on clearing brush and controlled burning have made much of the Sierra Nevada a tinderbox that could yield a devastating fire on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration of five years back, according to many forest experts. Extreme environmentalism opposes any significant human intrusion into lands set aside as natural preserves– and supports an ever-increasing expansion of such preserves. But even the Indians (Americans-Native, correcting the obvious callous disregard for the damage the word Indian does to the psyche of countless thousands– a public service from me) in North America prior to settlement by Europeans conducted controlled burning. They insisted on being masters of nature, not on allowing nature to master them– or to burn their homelands to a crisp. — The broad mass of a nation… | "If the principle were to prevail of a will more easily fall victim | common law [ie. a single govt] being in to a big lie than to a small one| force in the U.S… it would become the _Mein Kampf_ Adolf Hitler | most corrupt govt. on earth" — Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – | Environmental Disaster | — editorial: Orange County Register | | One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern | California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous | environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species | except the human. | Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna | Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed | to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, | in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have | made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could | have stopped it." | But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition | that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as | into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– | throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. | The ultimate irony here is that the wildfires probably killed significant | populations of many endangered species in these same areas so the efforts | of the environmentalists were completely in vain and probably made the | situation worse. I wasn’t going to comment on this. It is peculiar for me to take the side of an Orange County newspaper against "environmentalists", but if true, this is a case where they certainly have a point. (Extending the point to the case of Yellowstone is a different matter, and probably unjustified.) Dean, can I take your statement here as confirmation that "environmentalists" are responsible for this policy, and that the policy was erroneous? Or are you just arguing hypothetically, assuming that this is true as stated?
Since I am from Southern CA, I have watched the news broadcasts closely. They have mentioned a number of times that "environmentalists" had gone to court to stop preventive burns. The primary motive for their opposition was that the burns were planned in habitat containing endangered species. They actually listed some endangered birds on CNN that had lost significant areas of habitat and extrapolated to percentages lost from the population (25 – 50% generally). I am not aware that they opposed the burn for any other reason although TV coverage is hardly complete. I think this is very different from the controversy over preventive burns in Yellowstone. The policy was clearly erroneous from a perspective of protecting private property; and in hindsight it was erroneous from the perspective of helping the endangered species. | On the other hand, it is foolish to blame the | environmentalists because they were simply trying to deal with the | problem of too much expansion of human society in the area, both with | respect to the endangered species and the fires. Had the extensive | development not occurred in these inappropriate areas, the species would | not be endangered, the preventive fires would have occurred and far fewer | homes would have been destroyed. Hmmm. Well, environmental purity here would be the more proximate cause (though there may be some idiot who likes to play with matches involved too.)
Proximate = short term in this case. Since the pressure to have the burn, and the condition of the endangered species that led to the opposition are both the result of massive residential development, that is the root cause – and not one that is difficult to predict. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -I am never comfortable with the word "environmentalist". I can never make any sense of what that means in practical terms. In this case, the people called "environmentalists" were participants in the degradation of the environment. Problems shouldn’t be cast as "environmentalists" vs "pro-market forces". They should be cast as good sense versus foolishness. A hallmark of foolishness is results diametrically opposite to intentions. In these cases, the fools thought they were protecting the environment, and were actually harming it. In the case of greenhouse and ozone policy, people who may think they are protecting the economy are probably doing it great damage in the long run. In all these cases, the foolish position is based on a triumph of sentiment over logic, and of symbols over sense. Our moral positions cannot be based solely on pure logic, to be sure, but if we try to implement our moral goals based on gut feeling rather than cool reason, ridiculous and tragic errors of this sort cannot be avoided.
To the degree that I divide up the players, I tend towards a dichotomy of short-term vs long-term view, although no dichotomy is always applicable. When ozone or climate "backlashers" argue about economic problems, they aren’t arguing for a healthy economy in 30 years, they are arguing for their jobs and their companies. Its no secret that those who want to preserve/create a better environment sometimes act counterproductively. Sometimes they should know better, sometimes they couldn’t. That is also an important difference to note. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Environmental Disaster — editorial: Orange County Register One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species except the human. Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could have stopped it." But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. This stupidity isn’t limited to Souther Cal. Restrictions on clearing brush and controlled burning have made much of the Sierra Nevada a tinderbox that could yield a devastating fire on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration of five years back, according to many forest experts. Extreme environmentalism opposes any significant human intrusion into lands set aside as natural preserves– and supports an ever-increasing expansion of such preserves. But even the Indians (Americans-Native, correcting the obvious callous disregard for the damage the word Indian does to the psyche of countless thousands– a public service from me) in North America prior to settlement by Europeans conducted controlled burning. They insisted on being masters of nature, not on allowing nature to master them– or to burn their homelands to a crisp. John McPhee wrote a book several years ago about the `natural cycle’ on the California coast. This supposedly consists of fires followed by mudslides, followed by fires, etc. McPhee has the reputation of being a fairly knoweldgeable writer about environmental issues, but of course, one need not take what he says as gospel. I don’t remember the details of his analysis, which when I read it seemd quite convincing. Can anyone else comment? Having once lived in the Berkeley hills, it seems to me that although it is a beautiful place to live, there are a host of problems. We had a house next to something called `the slide’, which was slowly moving down the hill. Still people bought houses in that area in the vain hope that they would escape the consequences of the natural geology of the area. The basic question asked by many environmentalists is whether people should be encouraged to live in precarious locations by indirect subsidies of one sort or another? The answer is usually not entirely clear, and may have to be examined case by case. — Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
This is not something restricted to So.Cal., or anywhere frankly. We have local example where the engineering geology studies clearly showed that there was a risk, whether from rock fall or mudslide etc., and yet somehow the owners of the property managed to get planning permission to subdivide and build in a hazardous area. Within a couple of years, we had a very cold and wet winter, and … yep … there was a slip that went around the house, and even through the back wall of the garage. We take students there on field trips, and they can still (as of late) see the staining on the outside walls, that go up at least 0.5 m along the front corner. The mudslide came around from the back. Driving through the hills from San Fran. to visit friends in the valley, I was always amazed at where people were allowed to build. So long as we geologists, geophysicists, environmental scientists don’t get any attention from planners, money rules, and the builders build in marginal areas, and the municipality increases its tax base. End of sermon. Regards, David Nobes
Response:
| Environmental Disaster | — editorial: Orange County Register | | One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern | California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous | environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species | except the human. | Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna | Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed | to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, | in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have | made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could | have stopped it." | But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition | that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as | into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– | throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. | The ultimate irony here is that the wildfires probably killed significant | populations of many endangered species in these same areas so the efforts | of the environmentalists were completely in vain and probably made the | situation worse. I wasn’t going to comment on this. It is peculiar for me to take the side of an Orange County newspaper against "environmentalists", but if true, this is a case where they certainly have a point. (Extending the point to the case of Yellowstone is a different matter, and probably unjustified.) Dean, can I take your statement here as confirmation that "environmentalists" are responsible for this policy, and that the policy was erroneous? Or are you just arguing hypothetically, assuming that this is true as stated? | On the other hand, it is foolish to blame the | environmentalists because they were simply trying to deal with the | problem of too much expansion of human society in the area, both with | respect to the endangered species and the fires. Had the extensive | development not occurred in these inappropriate areas, the species would | not be endangered, the preventive fires would have occurred and far fewer | homes would have been destroyed. Hmmm. Well, environmental purity here would be the more proximate cause (though there may be some idiot who likes to play with matches involved too.) I am never comfortable with the word "environmentalist". I can never make any sense of what that means in practical terms. In this case, the people called "environmentalists" were participants in the degradation of the environment. I am reminded of the amusing but sad incident in Venice Beach where Department of Natural Resources (or whatever it’s called in CA) employees were required to kill a diseased duck population living in the canals to prevent the spread of the disease to the wild population. This aroused great mobs of self-righteous fools, presumably as green-minded as the day is long, to protest loudly ("You are evil people. Evil evil evil!") and interfere with the effort to protect the wild population. I have heard that some of the infected ducks were "rescued" by some of these people, and the problem has indeed spread into the wild population as a result, but this is hearsay. (can anyone confirm?) Problems shouldn’t be cast as "environmentalists" vs "pro-market forces". They should be cast as good sense versus foolishness. A hallmark of foolishness is results diametrically opposite to intentions. In these cases, the fools thought they were protecting the environment, and were actually harming it. In the case of greenhouse and ozone policy, people who may think they are protecting the economy are probably doing it great damage in the long run. In all these cases, the foolish position is based on a triumph of sentiment over logic, and of symbols over sense. Our moral positions cannot be based solely on pure logic, to be sure, but if we try to implement our moral goals based on gut feeling rather than cool reason, ridiculous and tragic errors of this sort cannot be avoided. mt
Response:
Environmental Disaster — editorial: Orange County Register One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species except the human. Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could have stopped it." But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. This stupidity isn’t limited to Souther Cal. Restrictions on clearing brush and controlled burning have made much of the Sierra Nevada a tinderbox that could yield a devastating fire on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration of five years back, according to many forest experts. Extreme environmentalism opposes any significant human intrusion into lands set aside as natural preserves– and supports an ever-increasing expansion of such preserves. But even the Indians (Americans-Native, correcting the obvious callous disregard for the damage the word Indian does to the psyche of countless thousands– a public service from me) in North America prior to settlement by Europeans conducted controlled burning. They insisted on being masters of nature, not on allowing nature to master them– or to burn their homelands to a crisp. — The broad mass of a nation… | "If the principle were to prevail of a will more easily fall victim | common law [ie. a single govt] being in to a big lie than to a small one| force in the U.S… it would become the _Mein Kampf_ Adolf Hitler | most corrupt govt. on earth" — Jefferson
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Environmental Disaster — editorial: Orange County Register One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species except the human. Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could have stopped it." But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. This stupidity isn’t limited to Souther Cal. Restrictions on clearing brush and controlled burning have made much of the Sierra Nevada a tinderbox that could yield a devastating fire on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration of five years back, according to many forest experts. Extreme environmentalism opposes any significant human intrusion into lands set aside as natural preserves– and supports an ever-increasing expansion of such preserves. But even the Indians (Americans-Native, correcting the obvious callous disregard for the damage the word Indian does to the psyche of countless thousands– a public service from me) in North America prior to settlement by Europeans conducted controlled burning. They insisted on being masters of nature, not on allowing nature to master them– or to burn their homelands to a crisp.
The ultimate irony here is that the wildfires probably killed significant populations of many endangered species in these same areas so the efforts of the environmentalists were completely in vain and probably made the situation worse. On the other hand, it is foolish to blame the environmentalists because they were simply trying to deal with the problem of too much expansion of human society in the area, both with respect to the endangered species and the fires. Had the extensive development not occurred in these inappropriate areas, the species would not be endangered, the preventive fires would have occurred and far fewer homes would have been destroyed. —
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Environmental Disaster — editorial: Orange County Register One of the disturbing issues arising out of the nightmare Southern California fires is the contribution to the disaster from overzealous environmentalism. We mean, of course, the kind that honors all species except the human. Orange County Fire Capt. Dan Young says the hellfire in Laguna Beach could have been much less destructive had his department been allowed to conduct controlled burns over the years in nearby undeveloped areas, in order to create fire breaks and clear undergrowth. "It could have made a difference in this fire," the chief told the LA Times. "It could have stopped it." But environmentalist opposition to controlled burning– opposition that has found its way into local, state and federal mandates, as well as into the rule book of the South Coast Air Quality Management District– throws up roadblocks to such preventative strategies. This stupidity isn’t limited to Souther Cal. Restrictions on clearing brush and controlled burning have made much of the Sierra Nevada a tinderbox that could yield a devastating fire on the scale of the Yellowstone conflagration of five years back, according to many forest experts. Extreme environmentalism opposes any significant human intrusion into lands set aside as natural preserves– and supports an ever-increasing expansion of such preserves. But even the Indians (Americans-Native, correcting the obvious callous disregard for the damage the word Indian does to the psyche of countless thousands– a public service from me) in North America prior to settlement by Europeans conducted controlled burning. They insisted on being masters of nature, not on allowing nature to master them– or to burn their homelands to a crisp.
John McPhee wrote a book several years ago about the `natural cycle’ on the California coast. This supposedly consists of fires followed by mudslides, followed by fires, etc. McPhee has the reputation of being a fairly knoweldgeable writer about environmental issues, but of course, one need not take what he says as gospel. I don’t remember the details of his analysis, which when I read it seemd quite convincing. Can anyone else comment? Having once lived in the Berkeley hills, it seems to me that although it is a beautiful place to live, there are a host of problems. We had a house next to something called `the slide’, which was slowly moving down the hill. Still people bought houses in that area in the vain hope that they would escape the consequences of the natural geology of the area. The basic question asked by many environmentalists is whether people should be encouraged to live in precarious locations by indirect subsidies of one sort or another? The answer is usually not entirely clear, and may have to be examined case by case. — Dept. of Mathematics, Northwestern Univ., Evanston, IL 60208
Response:
Question:
Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty.
No, I’d rather have a lose-lose world of war and poverty, thank you. Sheesh. Isn’t this ever going to get changed? This FAQ is a major embarassment to libertarianism. — ObYouKnowWho Bait: Stuffed Turkey with Gravy and Mashed Potatoes
Response:
Archive-name: libertarian/faq Version: 1.2 Last-modified: 11 Apr 1994 Frequently Asked Questions about Libertarianism Many USENET readers encounter libertarianism for the first time on USENET. The following is a list of answers to many of the frequently asked questions about libertarianism. These answers have been compiled from several sources. Most of the answers are derived or quoted from writings by David Bergland including "Libertarianism in One Lesson" and "America’s Libertarian Heritage." Quotes were used with permission from David Bergland and the Advocates for Self-Government as long as proper credit was retained. All quoted answers will be marked and the source referenced in the bibliography. Contents: 1. What is libertarianism? 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? 10. What position do libertarians have on subsidies for farm and business? 11. Are people better off with free trade than with tariffs? 12. What position do libertarians take on minimum wage laws? 13. What about the poor? 14. Don’t we need affirmative action to keep bigoted employers from refusing to hire minorities and women? 15. How do libertarians feel about taxes? 15a. I’m for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it? 16. Aren’t you going too far? 17. Won’t these ideas work only if everybody is good? 1. What is libertarianism? Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty. And we believe that the only way to get it is through self-government… NOT others- government. Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means you don’t force your values on peaceful, honest people. Today, however, others-government is giving us insecurity, conflict and poverty. Let’s revitalize our heritage of self-government to create a win-win world where everyone comes out ahead. [4] — Carole Ann Rand 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? You have a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Today’s liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life. Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to decide for yourself what’s best for you and to act on that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly. Today’s liberals and conservatives have rejected America’s heritage of liberty and personal responsibility. They want to put us all in their straitjacket. Americans built a great country without shackles. It’s time to take them off again. Break free of the useless left right spectrum. Think freedom on all issues. Think libertarian. [2] 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? Libertarians use a caring, people centered approach to politics. Politicians too frequently forget that their laws and regulations affect real, live human beings. Libertarians never lose sight of that fact. We see each individual as unique, with great potential. We want a system which encourages all of us to discover the best within ourselves and make the most of it. A system which encourages the development of the most harmonious relationships among all people. In dealing with political issues, libertarians focus on the people involved. Who is having a problem? What is it? What is the government doing already, if anything, and might that be the cause of the problem? Most importantly, Libertarians ask: is anyone violating another’s rights? Is someone committing murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, embezzlement, arson, trespass, etc.? If so, then it’s proper to call on government to help the victim against the wrongdoer. But, if not, the government should not get involved. In most instances, people are better off if allowed to work out their own problems through voluntary cooperation without introducing the coercive tool of government. [3] 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? History shows that free people can be counted on to defend their homes and their country. But the draft is slavery, and slaves make lousy defenders of freedom. I like knowing I’m being protected by people who are in the military because they want to be there, not because they were forced against their will to be there. A military focused on defending America instead of policing the globe would reduce manpower needs and further eliminate any reason to have a draft or draft registration. Let’s let free people defend freedom. [3] 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? America’s free press is envied by freedom-starved people everywhere. Dictators use a controlled press to silence opposition and to feed lies to their citizens. Americans would not like it if the government here owned or controlled the newspapers. Why should we like government control of TV and radio any better? As with printed words, broadcast words can and should be regulated by the free market. Americans should be able to freely choose what they will watch or listen to, without Big Brother making those decisions for them. [3] 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? Nothing is more personal than the way people chose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms. This doesn’t mean we must personally approve of the sexual behaviors of others. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, no one has the right to use the force of government laws to try to stop or punish them. There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail because of their sexual choices. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. [3] 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? Every day millions of adult Americans agree to make love. There is no justification for throwing them in jail. These are peaceful voluntary agreements between consenting adults. A tiny fraction of these involve money. Criminal penalties do not stop prostitution. They just create real problems. One study showed it costs taxpayers two thousand dollars every time a prostitute is arrested. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair. [3] 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? Alcohol prohibition tore America apart once. Now it is the war on drugs. Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug use. All they do is make it harder to help people. And just as Prohibition created organized crime, today’s drug laws keep organized crime alive — with all the violence and corruption that goes along with it. Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems. Let’s respect the right of people to control their own bodies. Decriminalize drugs, help those who need it, and let the police spend their time protecting us from real crime. [3] 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? I, too, want to live in a society where people are healthy and productive, not destroying their lives with addictive drugs. All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few addicts. Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs inexpensively. We have addicts today despite drug criminalization. We also have the violence that is caused by drugs being illegal. Let’s decriminalize drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it. [3] 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? Libertarians,, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America’s millions of gun owners are people too. Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone’s permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America’s founders knew that. It is still true today. 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? People have the right to travel anywhere, and to take any job offered them, so long as they do it at their own expense and without violating the rights of others. A way to help the poor is to let them go where the work is, regardless of borders. Studies show that immigrants don’t take jobs from others, they add to the economy and help create more jobs. America was built by immigrants who came here seeking nothing but opportunity and freedom — and created the greatest, most productive society … read more »
Response:
I hate to say this, but this FAQ still sounds like a campaign speech or a sales pitch. *Please* change it. Thank you. — "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me… Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me… Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] … Flaming Turkey Wings! … – Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Response:
Response:
Like, there was nothing. Always knew Libertarians had very little to contribute to the realm of knowledge. (Sorry, couldn’t help it. It was such a cheap and easy shot.) Lev
Response:
Archive-name: libertarian/faq Version: 1.3 Last-modified: 10 May 1994 Frequently Asked Questions about Libertarianism Many USENET readers encounter libertarianism for the first time on USENET. The following is a list of answers to many of the frequently asked questions about libertarianism. These answers have been compiled from several sources. Most of the answers are derived or quoted from writings by David Bergland including "Libertarianism in One Lesson" and "America’s Libertarian Heritage." Quotes were used with permission from David Bergland and the Advocates for Self-Government as long as proper credit was retained. All quoted answers will be marked and the source referenced in the bibliography. If you want more information about libertarian ideas, send your postal mail address and phone number to me at: or Paul Schmidt, Internet Representative Advocates for Self-Government 6925 Three Bridges Circle Raleigh, NC 27613 (919)870-0161 Contents: 1. What is libertarianism? 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? 10. What position do libertarians have on subsidies for farm and business? 11. Are people better off with free trade than with tariffs? 12. What position do libertarians take on minimum wage laws? 13. What about the poor? 14. Don’t we need affirmative action to keep bigoted employers from refusing to hire minorities and women? 15. How do libertarians feel about taxes? 15a. I’m for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it? 16. Aren’t you going too far? 17. Won’t these ideas work only if everybody is good? 1. What is libertarianism? Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty. And we believe that the only way to get it is through self-government… NOT others- government. Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means you don’t force your values on peaceful, honest people. Today, however, others-government is giving us insecurity, conflict and poverty. Let’s revitalize our heritage of self-government to create a win-win world where everyone comes out ahead. [4] — Carole Ann Rand 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? You have a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Today’s liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life. Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to decide for yourself what’s best for you and to act on that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly. Today’s liberals and conservatives have rejected America’s heritage of liberty and personal responsibility. They want to put us all in their straitjacket. Americans built a great country without shackles. It’s time to take them off again. Break free of the useless left right spectrum. Think freedom on all issues. Think libertarian. [2] 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? Libertarians use a caring, people centered approach to politics. Politicians too frequently forget that their laws and regulations affect real, live human beings. Libertarians never lose sight of that fact. We see each individual as unique, with great potential. We want a system which encourages all of us to discover the best within ourselves and make the most of it. A system which encourages the development of the most harmonious relationships among all people. In dealing with political issues, libertarians focus on the people involved. Who is having a problem? What is it? What is the government doing already, if anything, and might that be the cause of the problem? Most importantly, Libertarians ask: is anyone violating another’s rights? Is someone committing murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, embezzlement, arson, trespass, etc.? If so, then it’s proper to call on government to help the victim against the wrongdoer. But, if not, the government should not get involved. In most instances, people are better off if allowed to work out their own problems through voluntary cooperation without introducing the coercive tool of government. [3] 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? History shows that free people can be counted on to defend their homes and their country. But the draft is slavery, and slaves make lousy defenders of freedom. I like knowing I’m being protected by people who are in the military because they want to be there, not because they were forced against their will to be there. A military focused on defending America instead of policing the globe would reduce manpower needs and further eliminate any reason to have a draft or draft registration. Let’s let free people defend freedom. [3] 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? America’s free press is envied by freedom-starved people everywhere. Dictators use a controlled press to silence opposition and to feed lies to their citizens. Americans would not like it if the government here owned or controlled the newspapers. Why should we like government control of TV and radio any better? As with printed words, broadcast words can and should be regulated by the free market. Americans should be able to freely choose what they will watch or listen to, without Big Brother making those decisions for them. [3] 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? Nothing is more personal than the way people chose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms. This doesn’t mean we must personally approve of the sexual behaviors of others. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, no one has the right to use the force of government laws to try to stop or punish them. There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail because of their sexual choices. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. [3] 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? Every day millions of adult Americans agree to make love. There is no justification for throwing them in jail. These are peaceful voluntary agreements between consenting adults. A tiny fraction of these involve money. Criminal penalties do not stop prostitution. They just create real problems. One study showed it costs taxpayers two thousand dollars every time a prostitute is arrested. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair. [3] 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? Alcohol prohibition tore America apart once. Now it is the war on drugs. Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug use. All they do is make it harder to help people. And just as Prohibition created organized crime, today’s drug laws keep organized crime alive — with all the violence and corruption that goes along with it. Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems. Let’s respect the right of people to control their own bodies. Decriminalize drugs, help those who need it, and let the police spend their time protecting us from real crime. [3] 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? I, too, want to live in a society where people are healthy and productive, not destroying their lives with addictive drugs. All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few addicts. Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs inexpensively. We have addicts today despite drug criminalization. We also have the violence that is caused by drugs being illegal. Let’s decriminalize drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it. [3] 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? Libertarians,, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America’s millions of gun owners are people too. Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone’s permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America’s founders knew that. It is still true today. 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? People have the right to travel anywhere, and to take any job offered them, so long as they do it at their own expense and without violating the rights of others. A way to help the poor is to let them go where the work is, … read more »
Response:
It still sounds like a campaign speech. — "On the first day after Christmas my truelove served to me… Leftover Turkey! On the second day after Christmas my truelove served to me… Turkey Casserole that she made from Leftover Turkey. [days 3-4 deleted] … Flaming Turkey Wings! … – Pizza Hut commercial (and M*tlu/A*gic bait)
Response:
It still sounds like a campaign speech.
*I’ll* say. Don’t you know that to post something to alt.activism you need to make it sound like a political tract or an article from a "workers’" paper? Try for some grammatical errors. Sprinkle in a few typos and CAPITALIZED WORDS. (tongue firmly in cheek) bearpaw | "I’m for truth, no matter who tells it. | I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against. | I’m a human being first and foremost, and as such I am for whoever | and whatever benefits humanity as a whole." - Malcolm X
Response:
Archive-name: libertarian/faq Version: 1.2 Last-modified: 05 Aug 1993 Frequently Asked Questions about Libertarianism Many USENET readers encounter libertarianism for the first time on USENET. The following is a list of answers to many of the frequently asked questions about libertarianism. These answers have been compiled from several sources. Most of the answers are derived or quoted from writings by David Bergland including "Libertarianism in One Lesson" and "America’s Libertarian Heritage." Quotes were used with permission from David Bergland and the Advocates for Self-Government as long as proper credit was retained. All quoted answers will be marked and the source referenced in the bibliography. Contents: 1. What is libertarianism? 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? 10. What position do libertarians have on subsidies for farm and business? 11. Are people better off with free trade than with tariffs? 12. What position do libertarians take on minimum wage laws? 13. What about the poor? 14. Don’t we need affirmative action to keep bigoted employers from refusing to hire minorities and women? 15. How do libertarians feel about taxes? 15a. I’m for cutting taxes, but as a practical matter, how do we do it? 16. Aren’t you going too far? 17. Won’t these ideas work only if everybody is good? 1. What is libertarianism? Libertarians want a win-win world of peace and plenty. And we believe that the only way to get it is through self-government… NOT others- government. Self-government is the combination of personal responsibility and tolerance. Responsibility means you govern yourself. Tolerance means you don’t force your values on peaceful, honest people. Today, however, others-government is giving us insecurity, conflict and poverty. Let’s revitalize our heritage of self-government to create a win-win world where everyone comes out ahead. [4] — Carole Ann Rand 2. Are libertarians liberal or conservative? You have a better choice than just left or right. The libertarian way gives you more choices, in politics, in business, your personal life, in every way. Libertarians advocate a high degree of both personal and economic liberty. Today’s liberals like personal liberty but want government to control your economic affairs. Conservatives reverse that, advocating more economic freedom but wanting to clamp down on your private life. Libertarian positions on the issues are not "left" or "right" or a combination of the two. Libertarians believe that, on every issue, you have the right to decide for yourself what’s best for you and to act on that belief so long as you respect the right of other people to do the same and deal with them peacefully and honestly. Today’s liberals and conservatives have rejected America’s heritage of liberty and personal responsibility. They want to put us all in their straitjacket. Americans built a great country without shackles. It’s time to take them off again. Break free of the useless left right spectrum. Think freedom on all issues. Think libertarian. [2] 3. How do libertarians approach the issues? Libertarians use a caring, people centered approach to politics. Politicians too frequently forget that their laws and regulations affect real, live human beings. Libertarians never lose sight of that fact. We see each individual as unique, with great potential. We want a system which encourages all of us to discover the best within ourselves and make the most of it. A system which encourages the development of the most harmonious relationships among all people. In dealing with political issues, libertarians focus on the people involved. Who is having a problem? What is it? What is the government doing already, if anything, and might that be the cause of the problem? Most importantly, Libertarians ask: is anyone violating another’s rights? Is someone committing murder, rape, robbery, theft, fraud, embezzlement, arson, trespass, etc.? If so, then it’s proper to call on government to help the victim against the wrongdoer. But, if not, the government should not get involved. In most instances, people are better off if allowed to work out their own problems through voluntary cooperation without introducing the coercive tool of government. [3] 4. What is the libertarian position on the military draft? History shows that free people can be counted on to defend their homes and their country. But the draft is slavery, and slaves make lousy defenders of freedom. I like knowing I’m being protected by people who are in the military because they want to be there, not because they were forced against their will to be there. A military focused on defending America instead of policing the globe would reduce manpower needs and further eliminate any reason to have a draft or draft registration. Let’s let free people defend freedom. [3] 5. Should the government regulate radio, TV, or the press? America’s free press is envied by freedom-starved people everywhere. Dictators use a controlled press to silence opposition and to feed lies to their citizens. Americans would not like it if the government here owned or controlled the newspapers. Why should we like government control of TV and radio any better? As with printed words, broadcast words can and should be regulated by the free market. Americans should be able to freely choose what they will watch or listen to, without Big Brother making those decisions for them. [3] 6. Why do libertarians want to repeal regulations on sex by consenting adults? Nothing is more personal than the way people chose to shape their sexual relationships. Government has no business intruding into people’s bedrooms. This doesn’t mean we must personally approve of the sexual behaviors of others. It simply means that as long as the participants are consenting adults, no one has the right to use the force of government laws to try to stop or punish them. There is no justification for throwing peaceful Americans in jail because of their sexual choices. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. [3] 6a. Does this apply to prostitution also? Every day millions of adult Americans agree to make love. There is no justification for throwing them in jail. These are peaceful voluntary agreements between consenting adults. A tiny fraction of these involve money. Criminal penalties do not stop prostitution. They just create real problems. One study showed it costs taxpayers two thousand dollars every time a prostitute is arrested. Let’s respect people’s right to control their own bodies. Decriminalize sex, and let it be a private affair. [3] 7. Does libertarian support of personal liberty extend to drug use? Alcohol prohibition tore America apart once. Now it is the war on drugs. Harsh laws and the threat of jail and fines will not stop drug use. All they do is make it harder to help people. And just as Prohibition created organized crime, today’s drug laws keep organized crime alive — with all the violence and corruption that goes along with it. Before drugs were illegal, Americans handled them with few problems. Let’s respect the right of people to control their own bodies. Decriminalize drugs, help those who need it, and let the police spend their time protecting us from real crime. [3] 7a. But if drugs were legalized, wouldn’t there be millions more drug addicts? I, too, want to live in a society where people are healthy and productive, not destroying their lives with addictive drugs. All of the hard drugs were legal before 1914, and there were few addicts. Studies show that even addicts can be productive, and also that they do not engage in crime when they can get their drugs inexpensively. We have addicts today despite drug criminalization. We also have the violence that is caused by drugs being illegal. Let’s decriminalize drugs so we stop the violence and get help to those who need it. [3] 8. Do libertarians support gun ownership as a personal liberty? Libertarians,, like other Americans, want to be able to walk city streets safely and be secure in their homes. We also want our Constitutional rights protected, to guard against the erosion of civil liberties. In particular, Libertarians want to see all people treated equally under the law, as our Constitution requires. America’s millions of gun owners are people too. Law-abiding, responsible citizens do not and should not need to ask anyone’s permission or approval to engage in a peaceful activity. Gun ownership, by itself, harms no other person and cannot morally justify criminal penalties. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America’s founders knew that. It is still true today. 9. How do libertarians want to handle immigration? People have the right to travel anywhere, and to take any job offered them, so long as they do it at their own expense and without violating the rights of others. A way to help the poor is to let them go where the work is, regardless of borders. Studies show that immigrants don’t take jobs from others, they add to the economy and help create more jobs. America was built by immigrants who came here seeking nothing but opportunity and freedom — and created the greatest, most … read more »
Response:
Question:
George, when you consider LaRouche’s ideas on the hard sciences and political economy, you have covered most of what the man has to say (except for international relations, and history, perhaps, but he treats these as aspects of political economy). What does LaRouche have to say that causes you to call him a nut, and why in heavens name, if you admit that the charges against him are "trumped up" (true), do you consider we are better off with this 71 year old philosopher sitting in a Federal prison. I think it is a disgrace! SORRY, I HIT THE WRONG BUTTONS. -Steve
jona thanjonatha njon athan nathan jonat hanjonath anjon athan nathan jonath anjonat hanjon athan nathan jonatha njona thanjon onathanjonathan jonathanjonathan jonathan jon athanjon onathanjonathan jonathanjonathan jonathanj o edwardjon anjonathan hanjonathan jonathanjo onathanjon anjonathan hanjonathan jonathanjona njonathanjon onathanjonathan jonathanjonathan jonathanjonat anjonathanjon onathanjonathan jonathanjonathan jonathanjonat anjonathanjon athan nathan jonathanjonat anjonathanjon athan nathan jonathanjonat anjonathanjon athan nathan
Response:
George, when you consider LaRouche’s ideas on the hard sciences and political economy, you have covered most of what the man has to say (except for international relations, and history, perhaps, but he treats these as aspects of political economy). What does LaRouche have to say that causes you to call him a nut, and why in heavens name, if you admit that the charges against him are "trumped up" (true), do you consider we are better off with this 71 year old philosopher sitting in a Federal prison. I think it is a disgrace! -Steve
Response:
Hey, somebody else who doensn’t think we’re all going to die from overpopulation. Hooray. Can you tell all these folks who think California is overpopulated they’re stupid??
Response:
You must be Warned, My Friend:
Path: borg.cs.unc.edu!concert!news-feed-2.peachnet.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.e du!sdd.hp.com!portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu Newsgroups: alt.activism Organization: The Portal System (TM) Lines: 3 : Hey, somebody else who doensn’t think we’re all going to die : from overpopulation. Hooray. Can you tell all these folks who : think California is overpopulated they’re stupid?? Yes, I can. The great professor John McCarthy has a .sig that is eminently, yea, even quotably, relevant in this context: "He who will not do arithmetic is doomed to talk nonsense." Do the math. The entire human population could fit comfortably inside Texas. Texas doesn’t have the infrastructure to support it, but "planet", in terms of the sheer amount available, is not something we can run out of in the foreseeable future. Nevertheless, you must be warned that the article you endorse came from the organization of Lyndon LaRouche. This person has some iconoclastically healthy ideas on the philosophies of hard science and political economy, but those good points notwithstanding, he is still a nut. He is currently in jail in Virginia on some outrageously trumped-up charges involving his methods of campaign fund-raising. But don’t allow the fact that he was railroaded to fool you. We are all better off with this fool in jail.
Response:
- POPULATION GROWTH IS CAUSED BY RENAISSANCES – Introduction Panel 1. Sat. Sept. 4, 1993. Paul Gallagher {The following is an edited version of the opening remarks by Paul Gallagher to the September 4 session on human population growth, of the Schiller Institute Labor Day conference in Tyson’s Corner, Virginia.} The most fundamental fact of the science of economics, is the history of the growth of the population of the human race, in numbers and power over nature. But it is almost always presented in this way (Figure 1), as if we have been a species of rabbits breeding according to a mathematical function, which is now rapidly approaching its limit. This is a hoax, created visually by the absurd choice of scale, and made believable by constant propaganda about a “population bomb.” Here is the truth (Figure 2) that will be presented in detail by the speakers I am introducing on this panel. The actual growth of the population density of the human race–of which only the past 3,000 years is graphed here–is expressed by distinct impulses–one of which is clearly of a different quantity and quality than the preceding impulses–surrounded by periods of stagnation or even decline which may last hundreds of years. But {because of these impulses} of sustained and rapid increase in population density, the general progress is upward, and the truly long-lasting, powerful and successful growth in human population density is shown by the last impulse. Upon these impulses, and above all upon the last one, depend the existence of 5.3 or 5.4 billion people alive today. Quality and Quantity These impulses are the scientific renaissances of human knowledge, creating {both} growth in the quantity and density of population of the human species, {and} higher quality of the individual human being and his or her life–which are therefore not opposed but directly connected. In this 3,000 years, the first renaissance impulse is the Greek classical period, in part revival and advancement of the knowledge of the preceding Egyptian civilization. This is the basis of what we call Renaissance, by which we mean the revival of the “Platonic” scientific ideas and progress of this Greek classical period. This is the classical age spanning from Homer through the time of Solon of Athens, of Aeschylus, of Pythagoras; upon which Socrates and Plato reflected. The second impulse begins with the Islamic Renaissance starting in the eighth century A.D. It becomes much stronger through the neo-Confucian Renaissance centered in China in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, which brought China’s population to one-quarter of the entire human race. This is the central subject of what Mike Billington will present today. It is a period in which human population growth was primarily in Asia and Africa. But at its end, it overlaps the first European period of building of great cathedrals and scientific improvements in agriculture. These renaissance impulses to population growth appear very gradual because of the comparison to the last one; but if you compare them to the periods in between, long centuries of stagnation or decline in human population, you see very definite and substantial impulses of growth. The third and by far greatest impulse is the Golden Renaissance of Europe beginning at the Council of Florence after the devastation of the Black Plague. Since then, in 550 years, the human population has grown nearly 13 times greater. And within this 550 years, there is a further upward impulse in the eighteenth century, and change in the upward slope of growth in population density. This is the worldwide effect, including prominently the {cultural effect} of the American War of Independence, the Declaration of Independence, the triumph of republican constitutional government. Clearly these are the periods in human history characterized by the greatest {improvements in the human condition, in culture, and in standards of life}; this has been directly connected to great and sustained increases in human population. In Detail Here (Figure 3) I have added the population history of Italy to that of the Balkans, to comprise a significant part of the area most directly colonized by Greek classical civilization. This small area came to include nearly 10 percent of the human population by the end of this almost 1,000-year long impulse, because the population density of this area had tripled in 600 years–at that time an extraordinary and completely unprecedented growth. Classical Greece came to have, by 400 B.C., a population density of almost 25 people per square kilometer, and that is almost equal to the United States today, 2,500 years later. This density of human population was also completely unapproached anywhere else at that time. This was a seafaring and {city-building} civilization: Anyone who has read any of the histories of Greece knows the absolutely extraordinary number of towns and cities which were built by colonization in this region of the world in a short time. Even Greek farmers lived in towns and cities, and went to their outlying fields each day, as many European farmers do today. It is clear that this impulse was broken in 400 B.C., and that 1,600 years later–1200 A.D.–the population density of this region had only just come back to the same level. What stopped this renaissance, was slavery–helotry, as it was called in Greece–the spread of which caused the Peloponnesian Wars starting here, 400 B.C., the onset of plague and the collapse of the population density level. The Greek Isles, which had established a new level of potential population density for the entire world, then collapsed and did not recover the same level of population for more than 2,000 years. Here (Figure 4) is the impact of the Islamic Renaissance–which was the transmission belt into Europe for advances in the ancient sciences of mathematics and music, upon the area it affected most–the Middle East and North Africa; again, this upward surge appears so gradual compared with the power of the European Renaissance which follows it, yet the population density of this region nearly doubled, when both before and afterwards there was stagnation or decline. Here (Figure 5), in Asia as a whole, is the very clear and (compared to what came before and after) the very sudden growth of population density from 800-1200 A.D., an increase of 70 percent. The impact of the same Islamic Renaissance upon this region was followed by the neo-Confucian Chinese Renaissance of the eleventh and twelfth centuries. Now. (back to Figure 2). Remind yourself of what you have seen on each graph, of whatever region, as nearly the same pattern of dramatic increase, dwarfing whatever came before, starting in the period 1450-1500 A.D. This is the impact on the entire human species of the Golden Renaissance of civilization in Europe. Here again, you see its responsibility for transforming a human population of about 400 million people worldwide, to a population of 5.3 billion people. Those 5.3 billion people’s lives exist because of the scientific and technological progress unleashed by that Renaissance. The European Renaissance was all the more remarkable because in Europe itself (Figure 6), it followed the devastating effects of the spread of usury in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries–collapse of banks, destruction of cities, massive spread of plague, and collapse of the population itself by 50 percent or more. Its leaders understood they were fighting for a new progress of classical culture and knowledge, {in order to bring the human population back from the edge of extinction.} For example, St. Thomas More, leader of the networks of Erasmus and of the Renaissance in England, writing to a friend in Germany: “the congratulations most of all, my dear Mullein, on the increase once again of your family. Your own happiness, but even more the work of revival of your country, need before all the increase of your people and those young educated according to the best method.” The Coming `Depopulation Bomb’ Which type of period of human history are we facing today?–one of increasing growth or decline and collaspe in human population. Over the past 25 years, this tremendous scientific and cultural impulse to growth of the human population has been reversed; today, Europe itself is pointing the way toward a global {collapse and decline of population} in the 21st century. This will happen unless the paradigm shift to cultural pessimism and antihumanism is reversed, and unless the ongoing worldwide economic collapse and spread of war are reversed. Here are the facts, from the U.N.’s own global population conference in Geneva in May–and also from the statistics and reports of many nations. Consider that, during the 1950s, the general forecast of human population called for 8 billion human beings to be alive by the year 2000. (This 1950s view came not only from the U.N., but from many private and government statistical agencies with no interest in scaring anyone about “overpopulation.”) Today, with only a few years to go in the century, the actual population is estimated to be only 5.4 billion. This would have shocked those who believed the forecasts of the 1950s. As of today, almost all the countries of Europe–West, East, and Russian–have either suffered absolute declines in their populations since the 1970s (most of Western Europe); or are undergoing such declines now (Russia, Ukraine, the Baltics); or are about to enter upon population decline, according to official statistics (Georgia, Belarus, etc.). Virtually all the countries of this large area–15 percent of the human race–have fertility rates {far below the generation-to-generation zero-growth replacement level.} Many of them already have death rates higher than birth … read more »
Response:
Next page
Previous page