http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Healthcare: We helped Germany rebuilt, now let them help us - 7 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd32a50a320f8f29?hl=en
* Green Sex (good news for cyclists!) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/39921cc7e1b6f57b?hl=en
* America's Top 50 Bike Friendly Cities --damned lies! - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6763ff7d0fc42542?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Healthcare: We helped Germany rebuilt, now let them help us
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dd32a50a320f8f29?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 6:14 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 9, 7:40 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu wrote
> >>> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote
> >>>> TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote
> >>>>> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage
> >>>>> workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value.
> >>>>> Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may
> >>>>> also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive"...
> >>>> It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that it lacks the will to do it.
> >>>> What would make the most sense is to slowly expand Medicare to
> >>>> cover younger adults, especially those in the 50-65 age range that
> >>>> are often the most difficult to insure. The infrastructure is
> >>>> already set up, and it's very efficient, much more so than any
> >>>> private insurance company.
> >>>> Joe Lieberman actually suggested this approach, then when Democrats
> >>>> agreed that it was a good idea, Lieberman immediately back-pedaled.
> >>>> See: "http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-5979254-503544.html"
> >>>> where Lieberman makes a lot of sense.
> >>>> Eventually, when a public option becomes available, it will likely
> >>>> be based on an expansion of Medicare and Medicaid. It will require
> >>>> the elimination of more Republicans from congress. That's not
> >>>> going to happen in a mid-term election where the opposition party
> >>>> typically makes gains in congress, and this election you have a
> >>>> lot of first term Democrats from districts that almost never elect
> >>>> a Democrat, but where Democrats were swept in because of the
> >>>> anti-Bush, anti-McCain/Palin feelings of the electorate.
> >>>> It's really just a question of when, not if, we'll have a system
> >>>> like every other industrialized country in the world (all
> >>>> democracies BTW). The present insurance system is unsustainable
> >>>> both for employers and individuals. The private insurers are
> >>>> enjoying one last hurrah before the system implodes.
> >>> I think the Medical Industry is like a sacred cow because many
> >>> people are milking it.
> >> That was just as true of every other modern first and second world
> >> country and they ALL moved to a decent modern universal health care
> >> funding system anyway.
> >> The main problem is that US political system is completely fucked.
> >>> Medicare around here is rife with corruption,
> >> Corse there isnt anything like that in the insurance system, eh ?
> >>> so at some point the cow must be sacrificed.
> >> Thats not the reason every other modern first and second world country
> >> has eventually got a clue and has done what needs to be done.
> > Figuring out what to do may be a strategy to delay any solution.
>
> Mindless conspiracy theory.
>
> > Or you though it was plain stupidity?
>
> Corse its plain stupidity. They're so stupid that they cant even grasp
> that the US pays TWICE the percentage of GDP that everyone else
> does for health care and gets a worse result on every measure that
> matters like longevity, years in good health and infant mortality too.
It's conspiracy on the part of the masters, and plain stupidity on the
part of the sheep.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 6:26 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 9, 7:46 pm, Conscience <nobama@göv.com> wrote:
> On 2010-04-09 14:45:34 -0700, "TibetanMonkey,
> the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> said:
>
>
>
> > This perception, though rarely openly spoken in public, may be
> > pervading society at large...
>
> >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R7wnBoWOfAU
>
> > I'd try PROSECUTING those criminals.
>
> To borrow a spiel from George Carlin, I'm for throwing this morons
> screaming from a helicopter.
They sound like those intolerant Iranian ayatollahs who call for the
punishment of those who don't follow the established order.
I think stoning of cyclists could result from this.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 7:25 pm
From: Jeff Thies
SMS wrote:
> On 08/04/10 7:06 PM, TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers,
>> whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage
>> workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for
>> private insurance, which is generally more expensive"...
>
> It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that it
> lacks the will to do it.
What blows my mind is how the repubs say that this is 1/6 of our
economy and we shouldn't harm it. As though 1/6 and growing is the right
size. What would be too large for them, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
That and how this will harm Medicare. As if Republicans weren't the
obstacle for creating Medicare, like they are now for health reform.
Jeff
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 7:41 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 9, 10:25 pm, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> SMS wrote:
> > On 08/04/10 7:06 PM, TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
>
> > <snip>
>
> >> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers,
> >> whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage
> >> workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for
> >> private insurance, which is generally more expensive"...
>
> > It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that it
> > lacks the will to do it.
>
> What blows my mind is how the repubs say that this is 1/6 of our
> economy and we shouldn't harm it. As though 1/6 and growing is the right
> size. What would be too large for them, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
>
> That and how this will harm Medicare. As if Republicans weren't the
> obstacle for creating Medicare, like they are now for health reform.
>
> Jeff
They have unlimited and unconditional healthcare, why would they care
about the ones that don't?
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 8:17 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
> On Apr 9, 10:25 pm, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>> SMS wrote:
>>> On 08/04/10 7:06 PM, TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit
>>> wrote:
>>
>>> <snip>
>>
>>>> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers,
>>>> whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage
>>>> workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for
>>>> private insurance, which is generally more expensive"...
>>
>>> It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that it
>>> lacks the will to do it.
>>
>> What blows my mind is how the repubs say that this is 1/6 of our
>> economy and we shouldn't harm it. As though 1/6 and growing is the
>> right size. What would be too large for them, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
>>
>> That and how this will harm Medicare. As if Republicans weren't the
>> obstacle for creating Medicare, like they are now for health reform.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> They have unlimited and unconditional healthcare, why would they care
> about the ones that don't?
Because thats what matters to get elected.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 8:27 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 9, 11:17 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 10:25 pm, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
> >> SMS wrote:
> >>> On 08/04/10 7:06 PM, TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers,
> >>>> whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage
> >>>> workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for
> >>>> private insurance, which is generally more expensive"...
>
> >>> It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that it
> >>> lacks the will to do it.
>
> >> What blows my mind is how the repubs say that this is 1/6 of our
> >> economy and we shouldn't harm it. As though 1/6 and growing is the
> >> right size. What would be too large for them, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
>
> >> That and how this will harm Medicare. As if Republicans weren't the
> >> obstacle for creating Medicare, like they are now for health reform.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > They have unlimited and unconditional healthcare, why would they care
> > about the ones that don't?
>
> Because thats what matters to get elected.
Yeah, but they can still play all kinds of mind games with people
telling them that Universal Healthcare is socialist, etc, and the
people will buy that. But eventually the tide will change, with
minimal damage to the sacred cows. If they drop the sacred cows, they
won't get elected either.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 10:44 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
> On Apr 9, 11:17 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
>>> On Apr 9, 10:25 pm, Jeff Thies <jeff_th...@att.net> wrote:
>>>> SMS wrote:
>>>>> On 08/04/10 7:06 PM, TibetanMonkey,
>>>>> the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit wrote:
>>
>>>>> <snip>
>>
>>>>>> The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage
>>>>>> workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value.
>>>>>> Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They
>>>>>> may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more
>>>>>> expensive"...
>>
>>>>> It's not that the U.S. lacks the capability to do this, it's that
>>>>> it lacks the will to do it.
>>
>>>> What blows my mind is how the repubs say that this is 1/6 of our
>>>> economy and we shouldn't harm it. As though 1/6 and growing is the
>>>> right size. What would be too large for them, 1/5, 1/4, 1/3?
>>
>>>> That and how this will harm Medicare. As if Republicans weren't the
>>>> obstacle for creating Medicare, like they are now for health
>>>> reform.
>>
>>>> Jeff
>>
>>> They have unlimited and unconditional healthcare, why would they
>>> care about the ones that don't?
>>
>> Because thats what matters to get elected.
>
> Yeah, but they can still play all kinds of mind games with people
> telling them that Universal Healthcare is socialist, etc, and the
> people will buy that. But eventually the tide will change, with
> minimal damage to the sacred cows. If they drop the sacred cows, they
> won't get elected either.
They wont get elected whatever they do. Those clowns just allowed
the complete implosion of the entire world financial system, AGAIN.
The voters wont be forgetting that any election soon.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Green Sex (good news for cyclists!)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/39921cc7e1b6f57b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 6:30 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 9, 9:11 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 8:19 pm, semi-ambivalent <thefro...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 7, 7:37 pm, "TibetanMonkey, Originator of the Banana Kung-Fu"
>
> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > This article proposes green sex, which means that cyclists are hot,
> > > and SUV drivers are losers in the dating game. I hope it happens soon
> > > enough...
>
> > > On Apr 7, 9:01 pm, "NO,Z OB" <d...@vvv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Ten green sex sins that can sabotage your love life
>
> > > > April 7 2010
>
> > > > Beware the following don'ts, and you'll be doing it all night long...
>
> > > > Sin: Courting by car
>
> > > > Why drive for miles to meet up with your lover? Take public transportation
> > > > to your rendezvous point and go for a long, sensual walk to get your juices
> > > > flowing.
>
> > > > Or think beyond the steel steering box and turn on your soon-to-be lover
> > > > with a hike or a bike ride. Way to work up a sweat.
>
> > > > Sin: Poison perfume
>
> > > > Synthetic fragrances are so not sexy, baby. What if your bottle of Poison
> > > > really were poison for your body and the environment? Most perfumes are
> > > > derived from petroleum, and some contain potential neurotoxins.
>
> > > > Opt for DIY alternatives made from organic essential oils. Vanilla, rose and
> > > > cinnamon turn guys on; the ladies dig vetiver and cedarwood.
>
> > > > Sin: Eating unsustainable chocolate
>
> > > > Chocolate, legendary among lovers, is known for its powerful effects on
> > > > libido. But don't give your beloved a box of truffles unless they're organic
> > > > and fair trade certified.
>
> > > > Conventional cacao farming is notorious for unsafe working conditions, lack
> > > > of sustainability and below-poverty wages. Not sexy!
>
> > > > Sin: Ditching birth control
>
> > > > Climate change is the last thing you want to think about in the heat of the
> > > > moment. But if you forget (or choose not to use) birth control, you're
> > > > risking more than an itchy, embarrassing STD.
>
> > > > Babies are adorable, but all those gurgling genetic replicas can be major
> > > > carbon sins. Each one of those "extra" children adds 9,441 metric tons of
> > > > carbon to the planet.
>
> > > > So wrap it up with a natural latex, fair-trade condom from Sir Richards or
> > > > French Letter Condoms, and toss it in the garbage post-coitus. Flushing
> > > > pollutes waterways and kills marine life.
>
> > > > Sin: Aphrodisiacs courtesy of Big Agra
>
> > > > If you've seen Food Inc. or read anything by Michael Pollan, you know that
> > > > our food system is making us all sick and obese. When preparing a meal to
> > > > ensure a little sumthin' sumthin', choose organic, local and fair-trade
> > > > products.
>
> > > > Whether you're using artichokes, saffron, or ginger (to seduce a woman), or
> > > > cinnamon, grapes, or peaches (to seduce a man), you'll go further if you get
> > > > it fresh.
>
> > > > Sin: Sleeping with the enemy
>
> > > > You may keep your sheets squeaky clean, but unless your bed is made from
> > > > sustainable materials, it's a very, very dirty place to be (and not in a
> > > > good way). Conventional mattresses are made from polyurethane and dipped in
> > > > a bath of frightening chemicals that should be nowhere near your body's
> > > > mucous membranes.
>
> > > > Luckily, there are natural latex alternatives that will have you sleeping
> > > > and sexing blissfully. Cuddle up with Savvy Rest, European Sleepworks, or
> > > > Keetsa mattresses.
>
> > > > Sin: Inviting Big Pharma into your boudoir
>
> > > > Whether it's for recreation or perceived need, you should probably leave the
> > > > Viagra in the bathroom cabinet (or even better, behind the pharmacist's
> > > > counter). Most "sexual dysfunction" can be traced back to diet, lack of
> > > > exercise, or toxic environmental conditions.
>
> > > > Try going vegan, eating raw, or starting a yoga regimen before you reach for
> > > > the little blue pill. If you must use a sexual aide, try horny goat weed, an
> > > > herb that's thought to help with erectile dysfunction.
>
> > > > Sin: Toxic sex toys
>
> > > > Do play with toys -- just make sure they're safe and sustainable.
> > > > Conventional toys, especially those made before 2000, are likely to contain
> > > > phthalates, chemical plasticizers that are carcinogenic and particularly
> > > > dangerous when used in warm, moist areas of the body. Do the "smell test" to
> > > > determine if toys are safe. "New car smell" is a dead giveaway that a vibe
> > > > or dildo isn't one that you want in your night table drawer (or anywhere
> > > > near you, for that matter).
>
> > > > Check out new toys from Jimmyjane, an online purveyor of beautifully
> > > > designed toys with a small environmental footprint but a huge, ahem, impact.
>
> > > > Sin: Tainted lube
>
> > > > All lube is not created equal. Check labels before getting slippery. Avoid
> > > > petroleum products, parabens, and even glycerin, a ubiquitous ingredient in
> > > > conventional personal lubricants.
>
> > > > Yes Yes Yes and Firefly Organics are both excellent alternatives to KY, the
> > > > old standby. Coming out after Earth Day 2010 is a new brand of lube called
> > > > Intimate Ecology. This brilliant product from HERBOLOGIE contains yogurt
> > > > bioferment, so say buh-bye to yeast infections, ladies.
>
> > > > Sin: Talking about toxins instead of talking dirty
>
> > > > There's a time and a place for everything. Don't be an environmental
> > > > schoolmarm when you're about to do the deed. Your lover doesn't want to be
> > > > lectured while naked (unless he or she is into that).
>
> > > > Do all your research, DIY projects, and shopping beforehand so you can be
> > > > totally spontaneous, like every good little eco-sexual should be.
>
> > > >http://www.ethiopianreview.com/news/58662
>
> > > > Warmest Regards
>
> > > > Bon_0
>
> > > > "It is a remarkable fact that despite the worldwide expenditure of perhaps
> > > > US$50 billion since 1990, and the efforts of tens of thousands of scientists
> > > > worldwide, no human climate signal has yet been detected that is distinct
> > > > from natural variation."
>
> > > > Bob Carter, Research Professor of Geology, James Cook University, Townsville
>
> > > Awesome! It is in bed that the future generations are made. And
> > > bringing some organic bananas to your first date would be a good way
> > > to introduce her to the subject.
>
> > >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>
> >http://www.sundancechannel.com/greenporno/
>
> > glad to help
>
> > sa
>
> Green Porno is talking a brave stand against the big fish --us. I may
> even dismiss my one can of sardines in my pantry.
I wonder if Isabella didn't fall in love with those bulls who run a
harem.
Whatever may have happened, she delivers the point --whatever that is.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: America's Top 50 Bike Friendly Cities --damned lies!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6763ff7d0fc42542?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 10:09 pm
From: Dan O
On Apr 9, 3:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 3:26 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4bbe012e$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> > > On 08/04/10 7:51 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> > >> On 2010-04-08, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > >>> "http://www.bicycling.com/topbikefriendlycities/home.html"
>
> > >> I was surprised* my home town (Grand Rapids, MI) made the list. I mean,
> > >> yeah, I used to ride a lot, but there was no real riding scene that I was
> > >> ever aware of, and the terrain isn't exactly flat, especially getting in
> > >> and out of downtown.
>
> > >> The coverage was pretty thin, though. I would have liked to see more
> > >> links
> > >> to local advocacy groups and bike maps, not just peoples'"favorite
> > >> rides".
>
> > >> [*] Pleasantly so
>
> > > They even admit that they tried for geographic diversity in the list
> > > rather than listing the actual top 50 cities. San Jose didn't make the
> > > list, even though it's very bicycle friendly. Silicon Valley is composed
> > > of a bunch of small cities under 100K population, many of which are very
> > > bicycle friendly (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara) and
> > > some of which are bicycle unfriendly (Cupertino, Milpitas).
>
> > This was their criteria-
> > --------------------
> > There are many important things a city can do to gain our consideration for
> > this list: segregated bike lanes, municipal bike racks and bike boulevards,
> > to name a few. If you have those things in your town, cyclists probably have
> > the ear of the local government-another key factor. To make our Top 50, a
> > city must also support a vibrant and diverse bike culture, and it must have
> > smart, savvy bike shops. If your town isn't named below, use this as an
> > opportunity to do something about it. Already on the list? Go out and enjoy
> > a ride. (Note: We considered only cities with populations of 100,000 or
> > more, and we strove for geographical diversity to avoid having a list
> > dominated by California's many bike-oriented cities.)
> > --------------------
>
> > If you asked the very casual recreational couple-time-month-at-most cyclist
> > if San Jose was a "bicycle friendly" city, do you really think they'd say
> > yes? I doubt it. You and I and most everyone we deal with in the cycling
> > community know the ropes and can deal with densely-populated areas and still
> > consider them "friendly." Dick & Jane probably feel subjectively "safer" in
> > an environment that could actually be less friendly and accomodating towards
> > cyclists but feel less threatening.
>
> > Let's look locally. Woodside isn't "Bicycle Friendly" and in fact are pretty
> > darned hostile towards cyclists, in terms of community support. Yet most
> > would feel a lot safer riding in Woodside than Sunnyvale or Palo Alto.
>
> > In any event, it was clearly stated that the selection process was designed
> > deliberately minimize the number of California entries into the list.
>
> Signs of danger:
>
> a) No one else riding out there,
>
> b) Riders on sidewalk,
>
> c) Lots of road rage.
>
> If you ignore those warnings, you are stupid. They all happen together
> around here.
I'll ignore what I want. You call me stupid if you want. (See if I
care.)
Actually, quite a few people out riding this morning. Things are
looking up., Still the city I ride to has got to be one of the 50
worst.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 10:53 pm
From: "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
On Apr 10, 1:09 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 9, 3:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
>
>
>
> <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 9, 3:26 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4bbe012e$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> > > > On 08/04/10 7:51 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> > > >> On 2010-04-08, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > >>> "http://www.bicycling.com/topbikefriendlycities/home.html"
>
> > > >> I was surprised* my home town (Grand Rapids, MI) made the list. I mean,
> > > >> yeah, I used to ride a lot, but there was no real riding scene that I was
> > > >> ever aware of, and the terrain isn't exactly flat, especially getting in
> > > >> and out of downtown.
>
> > > >> The coverage was pretty thin, though. I would have liked to see more
> > > >> links
> > > >> to local advocacy groups and bike maps, not just peoples'"favorite
> > > >> rides".
>
> > > >> [*] Pleasantly so
>
> > > > They even admit that they tried for geographic diversity in the list
> > > > rather than listing the actual top 50 cities. San Jose didn't make the
> > > > list, even though it's very bicycle friendly. Silicon Valley is composed
> > > > of a bunch of small cities under 100K population, many of which are very
> > > > bicycle friendly (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara) and
> > > > some of which are bicycle unfriendly (Cupertino, Milpitas).
>
> > > This was their criteria-
> > > --------------------
> > > There are many important things a city can do to gain our consideration for
> > > this list: segregated bike lanes, municipal bike racks and bike boulevards,
> > > to name a few. If you have those things in your town, cyclists probably have
> > > the ear of the local government-another key factor. To make our Top 50, a
> > > city must also support a vibrant and diverse bike culture, and it must have
> > > smart, savvy bike shops. If your town isn't named below, use this as an
> > > opportunity to do something about it. Already on the list? Go out and enjoy
> > > a ride. (Note: We considered only cities with populations of 100,000 or
> > > more, and we strove for geographical diversity to avoid having a list
> > > dominated by California's many bike-oriented cities.)
> > > --------------------
>
> > > If you asked the very casual recreational couple-time-month-at-most cyclist
> > > if San Jose was a "bicycle friendly" city, do you really think they'd say
> > > yes? I doubt it. You and I and most everyone we deal with in the cycling
> > > community know the ropes and can deal with densely-populated areas and still
> > > consider them "friendly." Dick & Jane probably feel subjectively "safer" in
> > > an environment that could actually be less friendly and accomodating towards
> > > cyclists but feel less threatening.
>
> > > Let's look locally. Woodside isn't "Bicycle Friendly" and in fact are pretty
> > > darned hostile towards cyclists, in terms of community support. Yet most
> > > would feel a lot safer riding in Woodside than Sunnyvale or Palo Alto.
>
> > > In any event, it was clearly stated that the selection process was designed
> > > deliberately minimize the number of California entries into the list.
>
> > Signs of danger:
>
> > a) No one else riding out there,
>
> > b) Riders on sidewalk,
>
> > c) Lots of road rage.
>
> > If you ignore those warnings, you are stupid. They all happen together
> > around here.
>
> I'll ignore what I want. You call me stupid if you want. (See if I
> care.)
>
> Actually, quite a few people out riding this morning. Things are
> looking up., Still the city I ride to has got to be one of the 50
> worst.
Well, you ain't alone you ain't stupid.
The roads around my place, Miami Beach, Florida, Collins Ave, to be
specific, all the way up to Ft. Lauderdale, and peripheral roads are
not that way. Driving itself is barbaric.
There's a whole lot of money going into a particular section of mixed
path though. You know what I'm considering? Ignoring the fucking bike
and ride a kayak. You must be able to change in order to survive,
right?
But it's not only about survival. I could survive by riding on
sidewalks, maybe. I guess it's just about pride. I want a whole
fucking lane to myself or they can shove it in, including the mixed
path where the beautiful people walk their fancy dogs.
And yet we have a vague promise that things will change in the near
future. Actually they said --I read it myself-- that they would launch
a rental program similar to Paris'... right in middle of the Miami
jungle. Not Monkey Jungle, which is nearby, also impassable for a
bike, but the mean streets where the big jungle vehicles rule.
I'll keep reporting, but I know my situation is not unique, which is
why I love to make this much noise.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Apr 9 2010 11:38 pm
From: Dan O
On Apr 9, 10:53 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
<nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Apr 10, 1:09 am, Dan O <danover...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 9, 3:01 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the-Monkey-with-the-Bag-of-Shit"
>
> > <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 9, 3:26 pm, "Mike Jacoubowsky" <Mi...@ChainReaction.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "SMS" <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in message
>
> > > >news:4bbe012e$0$1649$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>
> > > > > On 08/04/10 7:51 AM, Kristian M Zoerhoff wrote:
> > > > >> On 2010-04-08, SMS<scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> > > > >>> "http://www.bicycling.com/topbikefriendlycities/home.html"
>
> > > > >> I was surprised* my home town (Grand Rapids, MI) made the list. I mean,
> > > > >> yeah, I used to ride a lot, but there was no real riding scene that I was
> > > > >> ever aware of, and the terrain isn't exactly flat, especially getting in
> > > > >> and out of downtown.
>
> > > > >> The coverage was pretty thin, though. I would have liked to see more
> > > > >> links
> > > > >> to local advocacy groups and bike maps, not just peoples'"favorite
> > > > >> rides".
>
> > > > >> [*] Pleasantly so
>
> > > > > They even admit that they tried for geographic diversity in the list
> > > > > rather than listing the actual top 50 cities. San Jose didn't make the
> > > > > list, even though it's very bicycle friendly. Silicon Valley is composed
> > > > > of a bunch of small cities under 100K population, many of which are very
> > > > > bicycle friendly (Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara) and
> > > > > some of which are bicycle unfriendly (Cupertino, Milpitas).
>
> > > > This was their criteria-
> > > > --------------------
> > > > There are many important things a city can do to gain our consideration for
> > > > this list: segregated bike lanes, municipal bike racks and bike boulevards,
> > > > to name a few. If you have those things in your town, cyclists probably have
> > > > the ear of the local government-another key factor. To make our Top 50, a
> > > > city must also support a vibrant and diverse bike culture, and it must have
> > > > smart, savvy bike shops. If your town isn't named below, use this as an
> > > > opportunity to do something about it. Already on the list? Go out and enjoy
> > > > a ride. (Note: We considered only cities with populations of 100,000 or
> > > > more, and we strove for geographical diversity to avoid having a list
> > > > dominated by California's many bike-oriented cities.)
> > > > --------------------
>
> > > > If you asked the very casual recreational couple-time-month-at-most cyclist
> > > > if San Jose was a "bicycle friendly" city, do you really think they'd say
> > > > yes? I doubt it. You and I and most everyone we deal with in the cycling
> > > > community know the ropes and can deal with densely-populated areas and still
> > > > consider them "friendly." Dick & Jane probably feel subjectively "safer" in
> > > > an environment that could actually be less friendly and accomodating towards
> > > > cyclists but feel less threatening.
>
> > > > Let's look locally. Woodside isn't "Bicycle Friendly" and in fact are pretty
> > > > darned hostile towards cyclists, in terms of community support. Yet most
> > > > would feel a lot safer riding in Woodside than Sunnyvale or Palo Alto.
>
> > > > In any event, it was clearly stated that the selection process was designed
> > > > deliberately minimize the number of California entries into the list.
>
> > > Signs of danger:
>
> > > a) No one else riding out there,
>
> > > b) Riders on sidewalk,
>
> > > c) Lots of road rage.
>
> > > If you ignore those warnings, you are stupid. They all happen together
> > > around here.
>
> > I'll ignore what I want. You call me stupid if you want. (See if I
> > care.)
>
> > Actually, quite a few people out riding this morning. Things are
> > looking up., Still the city I ride to has got to be one of the 50
> > worst.
>
> Well, you ain't alone you ain't stupid.
>
> The roads around my place, Miami Beach, Florida, Collins Ave, to be
> specific, all the way up to Ft. Lauderdale, and peripheral roads are
> not that way. Driving itself is barbaric.
>
> There's a whole lot of money going into a particular section of mixed
> path though. You know what I'm considering? Ignoring the fucking bike
> and ride a kayak. You must be able to change in order to survive,
> right?
>
> But it's not only about survival. I could survive by riding on
> sidewalks, maybe. I guess it's just about pride. I want a whole
> fucking lane to myself or they can shove it in, including the mixed
> path where the beautiful people walk their fancy dogs.
>
> And yet we have a vague promise that things will change in the near
> future. Actually they said --I read it myself-- that they would launch
> a rental program similar to Paris'... right in middle of the Miami
> jungle. Not Monkey Jungle, which is nearby, also impassable for a
> bike, but the mean streets where the big jungle vehicles rule.
>
> I'll keep reporting, but I know my situation is not unique, which is
> why I love to make this much noise.
Brother.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
