Not only that, but a sweeper is probably not going to detect the most effective way to destroy a train -- loosen or remove a few dozen rail spikes on a curve. A sweeper won't have enough mass to dislodge the track -- but the locomotive WILL, and over she goes.
But... a derailed train is messy and spectacular, but seldom particularly destructive, other than to the train itself (and to whatever it was carrying).
And unless someone stepped up and took credit, it would be tough to tell a "terrorist act" from an ordinary derailment (which happen occasionally anyway, tho now that there are relatively few freight trains, people seem to have forgotten this. When I was a kid, my wardrobe was largely salvage from Great Northern derailments.)
And your locations are limited -- rail goes only where it goes, and curvey high speed tracks tend to be out in the middle of nowhere. Not nearly as visible as smoke pouring from the roof of a metro Walmart, which millions of people might see (and feel fear from, even tho it doesn't affect them).
You hit 'em all. I think this little speech should be reproduced far and wide -- get the meme into the public consciousness that we are not victims, and what amount to a few mosquito bites will no worse than annoy us. We're far too strong to let this relatively minor crap bring us down.
This here Tea Partier believes whatever the hell you want to do personally is your business, so long as it only impacts you and your property. Marry a goat, live in a hole in the ground, smoke weed, cut off your ears, I don't give a shit one way or the other. It's not my problem and none of my business. Therefore it is also NOT the government's business (unless you try to make it someone else's business. Kindly leave my goats alone.:)
This is just a fundamental concept of basic property rights -- you OWN yourself, therefore you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with yourself. Same with the money in your wallet. It's YOURS, not mine (not even secondhand via taxes).
Ultimately, property rights (including of your own self) are the basis of freedom. My speech, my gun, my home, my earnings, my self -- equally true for everyone. You get the idea.
I recall that one police department in some suburb of Chicago did just that, for small business owners in a distressed area, where the nightly robberies had reached the scale of a spectator sport. The cops rounded up all the small business owners, trained them, issued them a sidearm, and required them to have it in store. Subsequently a few would-be robbers got shot and that was the end of the local crime wave. (This was in the 1960s or 70s, so I have no idea where to find a cite.)
At any rate, I think a program to get guns distributed among poorer citizens would be a Good Thing for promoting a mentality of self-reliance, self-defense, AND defense of your home neighbourhood against any "terrorist" threats. (However rare those truly are... They'd become even rarer.)
Seems to me one of the pro-gun outfits could organize this as a charity thing -- bring us your old guns (tax-deductable contribution??), and we'll find deserving citizens, train them, and arm them.
As to where to get these guns -- every police department has a huge stash of confiscated weapons; what would be wrong with giving those (or even selling them at a nominal price) to deserving citizens? If your police department is REALLY about protecting the people, put your money where your mouth is and let them HELP by being able to defend both themselves and their neighbours. I daresay this would actually *reduce* risk to cops in poor areas, since it would make being a perp in those areas less attractive. And it's not everyday citizens shooting at cops, it's perps.
Via this route, it can be done without any taxpayer-funded subsidies -- just ordinary charity and distribution of surplus confiscated guns should cover it. (I've already done my bit; I gave a rifle I didn't need to a friend.)
I think it says somewhere there that he sells prints. But.. here's a much better site for photos of the lesser-known reaches of Montana, and a good starting point for the Hi-Line area:
It's supposed to be 16 degrees tomorrow night, here in the southern California high desert. This is about 6 weeks before we'd normally reach such low winter temps (and most years it never gets below 21 degrees at the very worst). We've already had snow down to 2700 feet, also vanishingly rare this time of year.. in fact the first time I'd seen either in 26 years here.
Well, this experiment in mob rule that we call democracy isn't working so well either, judging by what we've elected over the past couple decades, and how they've screwed over the very people who elected them.:(
By "qualified pool" I didn't necessarily mean by merit, but by citizens of voting age (something like jury duty, except this would be congress duty). However, I do think there is something to the original concept of property ownership being tied to voting rights and possibly to holding office, since under the current system, we have way too much of those with nothing to lose feeling free to take from others.
If you can't tell, I've become somewhat disaffected with the entire concept of democracy; as was pointed out centuries ago, it starts falling apart as soon as the voter realises that he can vote himself largesse from the public treasury.
As to those pensions, even at max they should reflect how long someone served, not default to the max pension even for the minimum service. This isn't the military, where you volunteer to potentially get shot at, and where it may BE a valid career.
I had an idea too, that rather than being elected, legislators should be randomly chosen from a pool of qualified candidates. (Didn't the ancient Greek system do something like that?) Anyway the idea is to entirely get rid of the campaign/popularity contest aspect, and make it be of no particular benefit to the candidate/elected, since your stint at the wheel couldn't be predicted or gamed.
An AC points out, ========= I go to a community college, they've been able to keep the cost of tuition the same for the past 5 years, there have been no layoffs, getting a degree from them is actually highly regarded in the area. They also accept pretty much anyone with a GED or better. Why to people pay to go to private tech schools again? =========
Exactly... but notice from their TV ads the demographic the private "tech" schools are aiming at: losers who sit around watching afternoon TV every day, but dream about making big bucks for no effort. Do you really expect them to make good employees, even if they do manage to graduate? (And do you really expect them to pay back the loan, which for a 4 year "tech university" program is close to $50,000?? lousy cost/benefit ratio at that.)
Anyway, I think it makes an interesting connection -- that we're being flooded with "tech worker visas" and that these "technical universities" are becoming profitable enough to expand and even seek regular accreditation (which they need to get in on the free money, er, I mean gov't-guaranteed student loan program).
Probably just being used for the cash flow. The nifty thing, from these for-profit "tech universities" point of view, is that now all the student loans are guaranteed by the government (meaning the taxpayers) so their profits are assured even if the student is a complete loser... and they cater to losers in the first place (you pretty much can't get turned down, so long as your loan goes through). BTW this is straight from a friend who works as a recruiter at one of these "tech universities". Interestingly, the tuition is about four times higher than the equivalent courses would cost at the nearby state university.
That may be, but corporations don't have nearly as direct a control over voters as unions have historically had. Poll watching has somewhat ended that abuse, but not entirely. Also, I was astonished when I looked up contribution numbers to see that big corps actually gave more to Dem candidates, in total. Talk about cutting your own throat in pursuit of short-term advantages....
That at least would be improvement, I agree. There needs to be a fairly quick mechanism for removal -- at least once sufficient evidence accumulates. Maybe a "moderation" system whereby once sufficient negatives accumulate, you're outta there, no trial or impeachment required.
I wouldn't, but you can bet that in a state where growing and perpetuating the State is the most "important" thing the legislature does (I'm lookin' at YOU, California!) some 'clever' legislation would do exactly that -- sunset the sunset law, so they could do an end run around it.
We kinda already have that with the nominating process... only diff I can see with your proposal is that the voting happens first and the nominating second; I doubt it would make any real improvement. (And didn't it originally work something like that? I don't recall offhand.) There is always so much party infighting that I think at best we'd wind up with some poor-second compromises, or most-popular but least-competent (as we've got warming The Big Chair right now).
An interesting concept, but I think what it would become in short order is a resurgence of union intimidation on the Dem side (much as has happened historically), and pretty soon fairly one-sided control.
I like some other poster's notion about having the Senator come into office however the individual state desires (elect, appoint, whatever) but then acting solely as that state's ambassador to DC, with full accountability to the state legislature, and a requirement of being present during state legislative sessions.
Which would perforce make both DC and state legislatures part-time propositions. As one of the big problems with gov't is that it's become its own fulltime big business, I like anything that reduces its influence, and I think this would help.
Now that set of ideas I *really* like. I do think you're right, it would vastly enhance accountability. I especially like the idea of the Senators having to be at home to participate in and get their direction from the state legislatures, which would by necessity mean that both state and federal were part-time affairs, thus less likely to spend their time (and our money) micromanaging everything.
Montana's state legislature is 90 days every two years. As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.
An AC responds regarding sunsetting of laws, ====== You mean like we have in Texas? Texas Sunset Commission Every agency in Texas has an automatic sunset date *unless* acted upon by the Legislature. Limited government is a beautiful thing. ======= At least Texas sometimes remembers its independent roots. I'm afraid most of the country has forgotten them.:(
Slashdot Mirror
Consider that the total mass of all the cars and trucks was what, maybe 1-2% of that of the train?? and cease to wonder why the train barely NOTICED.
I don't think most people have any idea how much sheer metal is in even light rail.
Me and my truck, we respect those 'do not stop on tracks' signs, thank you very much.
Not only that, but a sweeper is probably not going to detect the most effective way to destroy a train -- loosen or remove a few dozen rail spikes on a curve. A sweeper won't have enough mass to dislodge the track -- but the locomotive WILL, and over she goes.
But... a derailed train is messy and spectacular, but seldom particularly destructive, other than to the train itself (and to whatever it was carrying).
And unless someone stepped up and took credit, it would be tough to tell a "terrorist act" from an ordinary derailment (which happen occasionally anyway, tho now that there are relatively few freight trains, people seem to have forgotten this. When I was a kid, my wardrobe was largely salvage from Great Northern derailments.)
And your locations are limited -- rail goes only where it goes, and curvey high speed tracks tend to be out in the middle of nowhere. Not nearly as visible as smoke pouring from the roof of a metro Walmart, which millions of people might see (and feel fear from, even tho it doesn't affect them).
I am neither Christian nor "ashamed" of my body.
Nonetheless, my body is none of your business, and more importantly, it is none of the TSA's business.
[wild cheering and applause]
You hit 'em all. I think this little speech should be reproduced far and wide -- get the meme into the public consciousness that we are not victims, and what amount to a few mosquito bites will no worse than annoy us. We're far too strong to let this relatively minor crap bring us down.
This here Tea Partier believes whatever the hell you want to do personally is your business, so long as it only impacts you and your property. Marry a goat, live in a hole in the ground, smoke weed, cut off your ears, I don't give a shit one way or the other. It's not my problem and none of my business. Therefore it is also NOT the government's business (unless you try to make it someone else's business. Kindly leave my goats alone. :)
This is just a fundamental concept of basic property rights -- you OWN yourself, therefore you should be able to do whatever the hell you want with yourself. Same with the money in your wallet. It's YOURS, not mine (not even secondhand via taxes).
Ultimately, property rights (including of your own self) are the basis of freedom. My speech, my gun, my home, my earnings, my self -- equally true for everyone. You get the idea.
I recall that one police department in some suburb of Chicago did just that, for small business owners in a distressed area, where the nightly robberies had reached the scale of a spectator sport. The cops rounded up all the small business owners, trained them, issued them a sidearm, and required them to have it in store. Subsequently a few would-be robbers got shot and that was the end of the local crime wave. (This was in the 1960s or 70s, so I have no idea where to find a cite.)
At any rate, I think a program to get guns distributed among poorer citizens would be a Good Thing for promoting a mentality of self-reliance, self-defense, AND defense of your home neighbourhood against any "terrorist" threats. (However rare those truly are... They'd become even rarer.)
Seems to me one of the pro-gun outfits could organize this as a charity thing -- bring us your old guns (tax-deductable contribution??), and we'll find deserving citizens, train them, and arm them.
As to where to get these guns -- every police department has a huge stash of confiscated weapons; what would be wrong with giving those (or even selling them at a nominal price) to deserving citizens? If your police department is REALLY about protecting the people, put your money where your mouth is and let them HELP by being able to defend both themselves and their neighbours. I daresay this would actually *reduce* risk to cops in poor areas, since it would make being a perp in those areas less attractive. And it's not everyday citizens shooting at cops, it's perps.
Via this route, it can be done without any taxpayer-funded subsidies -- just ordinary charity and distribution of surplus confiscated guns should cover it. (I've already done my bit; I gave a rifle I didn't need to a friend.)
I think it says somewhere there that he sells prints. But.. here's a much better site for photos of the lesser-known reaches of Montana, and a good starting point for the Hi-Line area:
http://www.montanapictures.net/tiber-reservoir-montana.htm
Yeah, my friends along the Hi-Line were complaining about it being below zero already. Snow all over the state, too.
A few pictures for those who have no idea where we're talking about: http://www.stephenlehmer.com/Montana%20Hi-Line/Montana%20Hi-Line.html
It's supposed to be 16 degrees tomorrow night, here in the southern California high desert. This is about 6 weeks before we'd normally reach such low winter temps (and most years it never gets below 21 degrees at the very worst). We've already had snow down to 2700 feet, also vanishingly rare this time of year.. in fact the first time I'd seen either in 26 years here.
Did I move back to Montana, and miss the trip??
Well, this experiment in mob rule that we call democracy isn't working so well either, judging by what we've elected over the past couple decades, and how they've screwed over the very people who elected them. :(
By "qualified pool" I didn't necessarily mean by merit, but by citizens of voting age (something like jury duty, except this would be congress duty). However, I do think there is something to the original concept of property ownership being tied to voting rights and possibly to holding office, since under the current system, we have way too much of those with nothing to lose feeling free to take from others.
If you can't tell, I've become somewhat disaffected with the entire concept of democracy; as was pointed out centuries ago, it starts falling apart as soon as the voter realises that he can vote himself largesse from the public treasury.
Win 3.1x cost all of $70 at MSRP, $35 in the Real World, or $5/lic. in bulk. That was definitely a pricing sweet spot, sufficient to suck in everyone.
Apparently the pricing of today's Windows is proportional to the number of lines of code, rather than being tied to the inflation index. ;)
I did find myself wondering to what degree this might be one of those "gut the company and run away fast" exit strategies by Novell's current owners.
So... why isn't there a FOSS replacement for Netware yet?? Seriously. Has the concept even been considered??
And I mean the Netware NOS, not Netware-built-atop-linux, as in the latter days.
No argument there!
As to those pensions, even at max they should reflect how long someone served, not default to the max pension even for the minimum service. This isn't the military, where you volunteer to potentially get shot at, and where it may BE a valid career.
I had an idea too, that rather than being elected, legislators should be randomly chosen from a pool of qualified candidates. (Didn't the ancient Greek system do something like that?) Anyway the idea is to entirely get rid of the campaign/popularity contest aspect, and make it be of no particular benefit to the candidate/elected, since your stint at the wheel couldn't be predicted or gamed.
An AC points out,
=========
I go to a community college, they've been able to keep the cost of tuition the same for the past 5 years, there have been no layoffs, getting a degree from them is actually highly regarded in the area. They also accept pretty much anyone with a GED or better. Why to people pay to go to private tech schools again?
=========
Exactly... but notice from their TV ads the demographic the private "tech" schools are aiming at: losers who sit around watching afternoon TV every day, but dream about making big bucks for no effort. Do you really expect them to make good employees, even if they do manage to graduate? (And do you really expect them to pay back the loan, which for a 4 year "tech university" program is close to $50,000?? lousy cost/benefit ratio at that.)
Anyway, I think it makes an interesting connection -- that we're being flooded with "tech worker visas" and that these "technical universities" are becoming profitable enough to expand and even seek regular accreditation (which they need to get in on the free money, er, I mean gov't-guaranteed student loan program).
Probably just being used for the cash flow. The nifty thing, from these for-profit "tech universities" point of view, is that now all the student loans are guaranteed by the government (meaning the taxpayers) so their profits are assured even if the student is a complete loser... and they cater to losers in the first place (you pretty much can't get turned down, so long as your loan goes through). BTW this is straight from a friend who works as a recruiter at one of these "tech universities". Interestingly, the tuition is about four times higher than the equivalent courses would cost at the nearby state university.
That may be, but corporations don't have nearly as direct a control over voters as unions have historically had. Poll watching has somewhat ended that abuse, but not entirely. Also, I was astonished when I looked up contribution numbers to see that big corps actually gave more to Dem candidates, in total. Talk about cutting your own throat in pursuit of short-term advantages....
That at least would be improvement, I agree. There needs to be a fairly quick mechanism for removal -- at least once sufficient evidence accumulates. Maybe a "moderation" system whereby once sufficient negatives accumulate, you're outta there, no trial or impeachment required.
I wouldn't, but you can bet that in a state where growing and perpetuating the State is the most "important" thing the legislature does (I'm lookin' at YOU, California!) some 'clever' legislation would do exactly that -- sunset the sunset law, so they could do an end run around it.
We kinda already have that with the nominating process... only diff I can see with your proposal is that the voting happens first and the nominating second; I doubt it would make any real improvement. (And didn't it originally work something like that? I don't recall offhand.) There is always so much party infighting that I think at best we'd wind up with some poor-second compromises, or most-popular but least-competent (as we've got warming The Big Chair right now).
An interesting concept, but I think what it would become in short order is a resurgence of union intimidation on the Dem side (much as has happened historically), and pretty soon fairly one-sided control.
I like some other poster's notion about having the Senator come into office however the individual state desires (elect, appoint, whatever) but then acting solely as that state's ambassador to DC, with full accountability to the state legislature, and a requirement of being present during state legislative sessions.
Which would perforce make both DC and state legislatures part-time propositions. As one of the big problems with gov't is that it's become its own fulltime big business, I like anything that reduces its influence, and I think this would help.
An AC opines, "Remove the left wing liberal influence from government. It was Wilson and his ilk that made it possible in the first place."
Can't disagree with that at all :)
Now that set of ideas I *really* like. I do think you're right, it would vastly enhance accountability. I especially like the idea of the Senators having to be at home to participate in and get their direction from the state legislatures, which would by necessity mean that both state and federal were part-time affairs, thus less likely to spend their time (and our money) micromanaging everything.
Montana's state legislature is 90 days every two years. As one of the Founders pointed out, people make different (hopefully better!) decisions when they have to return home and work for a living, alongside the people whose lives their lawmaking affects.
An AC responds regarding sunsetting of laws, :(
======
You mean like we have in Texas?
Texas Sunset Commission
Every agency in Texas has an automatic sunset date *unless* acted upon by the Legislature. Limited government is a beautiful thing.
=======
At least Texas sometimes remembers its independent roots. I'm afraid most of the country has forgotten them.