PG wrote:
Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability (things
were good back then...)?

Conservatives are the dinosaur in the story. They are unmovable, lazy
(they want no effort) and stupid. And I say stupid because in the end
their size will be their doom. They can't have fun without 260hp...

Efficient creatures (sardines, ants, cyclists, kayakers) have a much
brighter future, particularly now that the barrel of oil hit $60--and
rising. And they shall inherit the Earth (the meek shall...).

Well, there's a revolution for them now.

"The Kayakers' Revolution"

Well guys, I'm not positive yet about the name of the revolution,
whether banana, sardines, cyclits' or simply kayakers' revolution. But
at least I've got a pretty good idea about the content, and that's
good, right?

Anyway, are you tired of all those revolution and counter-revolutions
in Latin America that confuse you more than politics in America, and
that send THOUSANDS LOOKING FOR REFUGE IN AMERICA? Well, here's YOUR
revolution...

***

"Do you want Revolution or Counter-Revolution--or none?"

'World Economic Forum chief economist Mr. Augusto Lopez-Claros said
that the Nordic countries provide a "workable model for the rest of the
world"'


Latin American "revolutions"...always a violent monkey in power, who,
of course, kicked out a Hungry Lion. Then all those accusations and
counter-accusations, plots and counter-plots, armamentism and
counter-armamentism, revolution and counter-revolution... But all this
eats up the resources of the little people who must be wondering
where's their part.

Meanwhile nice and quietly some countries in the world lead all
rankings important to people, all within Freedom and Abundance. And
most importantly, they lead the way in empowering women, not a macho
man. Well, I could be talking about the Banana Revolution (links
below), but not quite, I'm talking some real working models that are
the basis for it...


Nordic countries top women/men equality ranking
Nordic women enjoy a higher standard of living than women in other
parts of the world. According to the 2005 Gender Gap Index published by
the World Economic Forum, the Nordic countries have the most
gender-equal society in the world

The Most Gender-Equal Countries in the World

The Nordics are providing a workable model for the rest of the world

The WEF report is the first ever study to assess the size of the gap
between men and women in five areas: equal pay for equal work, access
to the labour market, representation of women in politics, access to
education, and access to health care.

The aim of the report is to allow countries to identify their strengths
and weaknesses in an area that is of critical importance for
development, and to provide opportunities for countries to learn from
the experiences of others that have been more successful in promoting
the equality of women and men.

World Economic Forum chief economist Mr. Augusto Lopez-Claros said that
the Nordic countries provide a "workable model for the rest of the
world" and that "it is not surprising that the Nordic countries also
occupy privileged positions in the global competitiveness rankings".

Mr. Lopez-Claros declared that the Nordics "have understood the
economic incentive behind empowering women: countries that do not fully
capitalise on one-half of their human resources are clearly undermining
their competitive potential".

The WEF report noted that the Nordic countries are characterised by
strongly liberal societies with an impressive record of openness and
transparency in government, and comprehensive welfare systems that
provide security to vulnerable groups in the population. That allows
Nordic women to have access to a wider spectrum of educational,
political and work opportunities, and to enjoy a higher standard of
living than women in other parts of the world.

http://www.scandinavica.com/cu__ltu...ty/equality.htm

THE BANANA REVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote40

WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE
http://committed.to/justiceforpeace

COMING OUT OF THE JUNGLE
http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote1


__________________
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere" -M.L. King

see thread...
http://www.paddling.net/message/show...ter&tid=345595

The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.

As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.

Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)

I wonder what Mark Twain's version of the Bible would look like?


"Scott" wrote in message
...
"PG" wrote in message
...

Frankly, I think God has a very keen sense of humor, but most of us just
aren't getting the joke.

"If I were to construct a God I would furnish Him with some way and
qualities and characteristics which the Present lacks. He would not stoop
to
ask for any man's compliments, praises, flatteries; and He would be far
above exacting them. I would have Him as self-respecting as the better
sort
of man in these regards.
He would not be a merchant, a trader. He would not buy these things. He
would not sell, or offer to sell, temporary benefits of the joys of
eternity
for the product called worship. I would have Him as dignified as the
better
sort of man in this regard.

He would value no love but the love born of kindnesses conferred; not that
born of benevolences contracted for. Repentance in a man's heart for a
wrong
done would cancel and annul that sin; and no verbal prayers for
forgiveness
be required or desired or expected of that man.

In His Bible there would be no Unforgiveable Sin. He would recognize in
Himself the Author and Inventor of Sin and Author and Inventor of the
Vehicle and Appliances for its commission; and would place the whole
responsibility where it would of right belong: upon Himself, the only
Sinner.

He would not be a jealous God--a trait so small that even men despise it
in
each other.

He would not boast.

He would keep private Hs admirations of Himself; He would regard
self-praise
as unbecoming the dignity of his position.

He would not have the spirit of vengeance in His heart. Then it would not
issue from His lips.

There would not be any hell--except the one we live in from the cradle to
the grave.

There would not be any heaven--the kind described in the world's Bibles.

He would spend some of His eternities in trying to forgive Himself for
making man unhappy when he could have made him happy with the same effort
and he would spend the rest of them in studying astronomy. - Mark Twain's
Notebook

PG wrote:
The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.

Not necessarily true. Remember, America is the fruit of one....

Well, maybe that's the wrong example.

But how are you going to jump start the dinosaur into action? Who's
going to stop the onslaught on the environment?


As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.

Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)

The kibbutz solve that consumeristic drive the simple way: SHARING. In
our case, it could be 5 kayaks for 150 people say.

I'm I getting too political? Please see...


Going back to the coops, here are some good reasons why many people
would join them if given the choice...

"Most people are living on Kibbutz Arava for two reasons: 1.) to be
able to work for themselves [no politician, no bureaucrat, no boss, in
other words, no lion], and 2.) to be able to raise their children in a
safe and comfortable environment [in other words, no jungle]. In a
world whose cities are increasingly becoming more polarized and
violent, these basic wants/needs are synonymous with life on a kibbutz.


Internally, Kibbutz Arava functions rather communally and ecologically.
There is a central dining room and commons area. Food that is eaten in
the dining room arrives as bulk, wholesale crates, thus eliminating
retail wastes such as packaging and plastic wrappers. The kibbutz is a
pedestrian community. People are able to walk and ride their bikes to
any kibbutz activity. In fact, there are only five leisure cars
available for the 130 adult members. On kibbutz, people don't throw
much away. When things break, they are fixed either by the garage,
carpentry shop, or laundry. Things are not easily thrown away, as items
are scarce. There are public commodities, such as a coffee and tea
lounge, a pool, an entertainment area, a computer and fax room, a music
studio, and a horse stable. By offering these amenities, the kibbutz
eliminates the need for everyone to have their own TV, computer, etc
[no consumerism, which feeds the lion]."

kibbutz... http://www.objectsspace.com/encyclop...ex.php/Kibbutz

Behind Consumption and Consumerism...
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onsumption.asp

While I think I understand your admiration of the kibbutz culture, it takes
a stongly ideological person to participate and make it work. I knew one
person who had been part of the kibbutz, and while one data point doesn't
constitute proof of anything, he gave me the feeling that he would be a good
communist if he was so inclined, as his ideological fervor was almost
religious in intensity. By contrast, the majority of people I come across
in the North American context seem very unwilling to share, and although
most pride themselves on being "good people", there is very little
enthusiasm for restricting their own freedom (to do, to consume, to enjoy
the fruits of their labor) in support of the common good. Part of my work
involves getting into peoples' heads to understand how and why they make
various decisions (purchase of goods, selection of a service provider,
deciding how to earn their living), and I am continually amazed at the
mental gymnastics many make to justify their attitudes and positions (this
applies to all positions on the political/economic spectrum). Over the
years, I've come to the conclusion that if an incentive system doesn't offer
immediate gratification, it has little chance of success. Yes, there are
always exceptions to the rule, and I've met many fine, principled and aware
individuals who do the right thing, but they are unfortunately in the
minority. It's not to say that the rest are "bad" people, but they are not
convinced that the reduction or denial of their desires will bring about a
better overall situation.

So to answer your question, until it is in the immediate interest of most
people to stop fouling the environment, taking the necessary steps (choices)
to do it won't happen. Why should anyone give up their fun and enjoyment,
when the whole mass culture is reinforcing the notion that "consumption" is
good, and even necessary. Those who don't buy into this concept are
abnormal, by definition. I'm OK with being different - it gives me the
freedom to see things from a different reference frame.

I noticed that you were admiring the system in Norway. I spend some time in
Sweden and the culture there is tangibly different from North America.
There is much more focus on "family" and "community", and by extension the
environment. On the other hand, Sweden has been a relatively homogeneous
society until recently, and the influx of immigrants with very different
social values has created strains. A similar view is also apparently
occuring in Holland, with people less willing to put up with the
non-assimilation of immigrant populations.

Ultimately, as a believer in democracy, we need to elect the right leaders,
who can then start steering the ship of culture in a different direction.
There is yet other aspect to consider. We talk as members of the western
culture, but the majority of the world's population do not belong to this
group. The effect of China, India, Russia, the countries of Africa and
South America will have a tremendous impact on the well-being of the
environment. It is true that the majority of energy consumption is by
"western" nations, but the others are trying very hard to catch up, and even
if we all stop doing bad stuff in North America, it may not be enough to
save the planet. Again, it appears that technology will have to be the
saviour, in providing cheap, non-polluting power to all. No, it doesn't
exist yet, but when the pain becomes acute enough, necessity will provide
incentive to invent. And if we fail, ... guess we weren't as smart as we
thought we were. In that case, the world will have another example of an
over-specialized species that couldn't cope with a changing environment.

I better get out and enjoy the waters with my family. And while we're at
it, pick up some garbage.

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


PG wrote:
The problem with most (political) revolutions is that they end up
devouring
those who start them. The chaos caused by the deliberate break-down of
old
rules is used by the opportunistic (and ruthless) to seize control of the
movement and install their own power structure. Elimination of those
with
principles and morals usually quickly follows. These are the true
predators.

Not necessarily true. Remember, America is the fruit of one....

Well, maybe that's the wrong example.

But how are you going to jump start the dinosaur into action? Who's
going to stop the onslaught on the environment?


As for the person who needs 260 HP to have fun, that's not a predator,
that's a sheep with vision problems. The cure for that is in the works.
With the price of a barrel of oil spiking towards $100 per barrel (not
there
yet, but soon), a lot of consumption-oriented expenditures become
discretionary. I share a waterway with many boats and it brings a smile
to
my face when I think of how much someone is spending to propel themselves
from point A to point B with no purpose other than to "have fun". Of
course, there is always the idiot boater who is drunk and can't figure
out
where they are going or what they are prone to hit, but the same idiots
are
also driving their trucks and endangering other peoples' lives on land as
well.

Even in the kayaking world, we have the whole spectrum of those who are
perfectly happy in a stubby plastic rec boat, and those who disdain
anything
that isn't kelvar/graphic fiber with a 30 lb. net weight. The latter
group
is just as consumeristic as the ones who drive SUV's or big boats. The
same
situation with cyclists - there are those who are happy with a
single-speed
upright and those who drill out their magnesium/titanium derailers. You
can
put a consumer mind into the most environmentally-friendly transport
system,
and they will still be consumers. Heh, but that's humanity for you. :-)

The kibbutz solve that consumeristic drive the simple way: SHARING. In
our case, it could be 5 kayaks for 150 people say.

I'm I getting too political? Please see...


Going back to the coops, here are some good reasons why many people
would join them if given the choice...

"Most people are living on Kibbutz Arava for two reasons: 1.) to be
able to work for themselves [no politician, no bureaucrat, no boss, in
other words, no lion], and 2.) to be able to raise their children in a
safe and comfortable environment [in other words, no jungle]. In a
world whose cities are increasingly becoming more polarized and
violent, these basic wants/needs are synonymous with life on a kibbutz.


Internally, Kibbutz Arava functions rather communally and ecologically.
There is a central dining room and commons area. Food that is eaten in
the dining room arrives as bulk, wholesale crates, thus eliminating
retail wastes such as packaging and plastic wrappers. The kibbutz is a
pedestrian community. People are able to walk and ride their bikes to
any kibbutz activity. In fact, there are only five leisure cars
available for the 130 adult members. On kibbutz, people don't throw
much away. When things break, they are fixed either by the garage,
carpentry shop, or laundry. Things are not easily thrown away, as items
are scarce. There are public commodities, such as a coffee and tea
lounge, a pool, an entertainment area, a computer and fax room, a music
studio, and a horse stable. By offering these amenities, the kibbutz
eliminates the need for everyone to have their own TV, computer, etc
[no consumerism, which feeds the lion]."

kibbutz... http://www.objectsspace.com/encyclop...ex.php/Kibbutz

Behind Consumption and Consumerism...
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRel...onsumption.asp

"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


PG wrote:
Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability
(things
were good back then...)?

Conservatives are the dinosaur in the story. They are unmovable, lazy
(they want no effort) and stupid. And I say stupid because in the end
their size will be their doom. They can't have fun without 260hp...



In that case, some of the most conservative people I know are liberals.

PG wrote:
While I think I understand your admiration of the kibbutz culture, it takes
a stongly ideological person to participate and make it work. I knew one
person who had been part of the kibbutz, and while one data point doesn't
constitute proof of anything, he gave me the feeling that he would be a good
communist if he was so inclined, as his ideological fervor was almost
religious in intensity. By contrast, the majority of people I come across
in the North American context seem very unwilling to share, and although
most pride themselves on being "good people", there is very little
enthusiasm for restricting their own freedom (to do, to consume, to enjoy
the fruits of their labor) in support of the common good. Part of my work
involves getting into peoples' heads to understand how and why they make
various decisions (purchase of goods, selection of a service provider,
deciding how to earn their living), and I am continually amazed at the
mental gymnastics many make to justify their attitudes and positions (this
applies to all positions on the political/economic spectrum). Over the
years, I've come to the conclusion that if an incentive system doesn't offer
immediate gratification, it has little chance of success. Yes, there are
always exceptions to the rule, and I've met many fine, principled and aware
individuals who do the right thing, but they are unfortunately in the
minority. It's not to say that the rest are "bad" people, but they are not
convinced that the reduction or denial of their desires will bring about a
better overall situation.

So to answer your question, until it is in the immediate interest of most
people to stop fouling the environment, taking the necessary steps (choices)
to do it won't happen. Why should anyone give up their fun and enjoyment,
when the whole mass culture is reinforcing the notion that "consumption" is
good, and even necessary. Those who don't buy into this concept are
abnormal, by definition. I'm OK with being different - it gives me the
freedom to see things from a different reference frame.

I noticed that you were admiring the system in Norway. I spend some time in
Sweden and the culture there is tangibly different from North America.
There is much more focus on "family" and "community", and by extension the
environment. On the other hand, Sweden has been a relatively homogeneous
society until recently, and the influx of immigrants with very different
social values has created strains. A similar view is also apparently
occuring in Holland, with people less willing to put up with the
non-assimilation of immigrant populations.

Ultimately, as a believer in democracy, we need to elect the right leaders,
who can then start steering the ship of culture in a different direction.
There is yet other aspect to consider. We talk as members of the western
culture, but the majority of the world's population do not belong to this
group. The effect of China, India, Russia, the countries of Africa and
South America will have a tremendous impact on the well-being of the
environment. It is true that the majority of energy consumption is by
"western" nations, but the others are trying very hard to catch up, and even
if we all stop doing bad stuff in North America, it may not be enough to
save the planet. Again, it appears that technology will have to be the
saviour, in providing cheap, non-polluting power to all. No, it doesn't
exist yet, but when the pain becomes acute enough, necessity will provide
incentive to invent. And if we fail, ... guess we weren't as smart as we
thought we were. In that case, the world will have another example of an
over-specialized species that couldn't cope with a changing environment.

I better get out and enjoy the waters with my family. And while we're at
it, pick up some garbage.


Good idea about the garbage, but more like likely than not it'll be TOO
LITTLE TOO LATE. The HUNGRY SHARK forces people to become predators of
their own--small ones, big ones--until they devour each other. I bet
you SARDINES want to remain sardines if they had a chance of survival
by cooperating. Both the forces COMPETITION AND COOPERATION ARE PRESENT
IN NATURE (yes, even predators cooperate) but cooperation is
conspicuously absent in a jungle called capitalism. Well, the results
are also conspicuous...

Kalifornia Kritter wrote:
Hey, the House of Mouse has done pretty well for central Florida. You
have paved roads and a lot of infrastructure built up in what was once
a mosquito-infested swamp. I remember what it looked like 40 years ago.
Wall to wall bugs...

When I returned to Kalifornia from Florida, I had a palmetto bug
hitchhiker hiding under the seat of my Jaguar. I kept killing palmetto
bugs and thought I'd got the last one, but there was always one more...

Just like your posts, Donkey. Always one more. If you answer, for
Dulcinea's sake, let that post be the last one! Dear Gawd, please make
Donkey stop!!!!

Yeah, all your polluting California stupid sprawl (read "Fast Food
Nation")brought to Florida is 5 hurricanes in a year. Florida had a
nice train to Key West and it went the way the of the trolleys in LA.
Watch "Roger Rabbit" if you don't believe me.

Steve Shank wrote:
"donquijote1954" wrote in message
oups.com...


PG wrote:
Coming back to the original question, are conservatives those who want
change (law of the jungle), or those who want to preserve stability
(things
were good back then...)?

Conservatives are the dinosaur in the story. They are unmovable, lazy
(they want no effort) and stupid. And I say stupid because in the end
their size will be their doom. They can't have fun without 260hp...



In that case, some of the most conservative people I know are liberals.

Liberal is a label and may be used for camouflage purposes. That
happens in the jungle (and the sea) quite a bit.

Conservative shouldn't be a derogatory word, being opposed to evolution
while being a pig should...

Chuck Norris wrote:
I guess then forget it Jack, even though where I live, I see cyclist
all the time. Why even bother, I will continue to ride, no matter
what. I will eventually get hit by a car and get seriously hurt. It is
funny that while the D.O.T. tries to make things safer for automobiles
all the time, people such as yourself think that cyclist asking to not
be killed in the roads is a special interest case, and not worthy of
any tax dollars at all. Whatever, Jack, I'll just continue to ride my
white ass to work each and everyday, just so I can smile and nod to
the SUV driver as he sucks down the dino goo.

Small Fish (such as sardines) do not figure in the plans of the Big
Fish, as these includes plans for big appetites. Well, I hate to throw
that example he Sardines find safety in numbers but cyclists are out
there alone.

Another way to look at it. That guy in the SUV is paying road use taxes
with every gallon of gasoline that he buys. The bicyclist isn't paying
his way.

donquijote1954 wrote:

Chuck Norris wrote:


I guess then forget it Jack, even though where I live, I see cyclist
all the time. Why even bother, I will continue to ride, no matter
what. I will eventually get hit by a car and get seriously hurt. It is
funny that while the D.O.T. tries to make things safer for automobiles
all the time, people such as yourself think that cyclist asking to not
be killed in the roads is a special interest case, and not worthy of
any tax dollars at all. Whatever, Jack, I'll just continue to ride my
white ass to work each and everyday, just so I can smile and nod to
the SUV driver as he sucks down the dino goo.



Small Fish (such as sardines) do not figure in the plans of the Big
Fish, as these includes plans for big appetites. Well, I hate to throw
that example he Sardines find safety in numbers but cyclists are out
there alone.