Allan,
I never said it was a garden of eden. I've lived (for short periods
of time) with indigenous people in both north america, and southeast
asia, and I have slept in the jungle without a mosquito net in asia
and the yucatan. My best friend has been living with a remote tribe in
Fiji
There are no remote tribes in Fiji (I was there as a PCV for 3+ years).
There are remote villages, but when I was there the indigenous Fijians were
never considered pas belonging to different tribes. Several PCVs in my
vintage married local girls, of varying ethnicity (Indian, Fijian, Chinese,
You're right, they're a village, not a tribe. Sounds like you'd know a
lot more about this than I do! I've never even been to Fiji, but I
hope to go over to attend his wedding next year.
The village has a diesel generator which they don't really use because
they can't afford fuel for it,
You will enjoy the kava once you get used to it. It looks like well-used
dishwater but tastes like a blend of Lavoris and white pepper.
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 1:13 PM, Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You're right, they're a village, not a tribe. Sounds like you'd know a
lot more about
We found a fijian store in Portland, OR that sells it. It's
interesting, but I'd say it tastes like muddy water, other than the
numbness/tingling. I'm sure I'd eventually began to like it if I drank
as much as they apparently do in the villages!
So which corps re-entry group were you in?
Fiji III, 1969 - 1972 (geologist)
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 3:56 PM, Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We found a fijian store in Portland, OR that sells it. It's
interesting, but I'd say it tastes like muddy water, other than the
numbness/tingling. I'm sure I'd eventually began to like it
I am not picking or choosing who goes or stays. There are too many
folks around and sooner or later there will be a rebalancing. I
suspect it will be really messy and will take a very long time to
crawl back out of. Sad to see all the accumulated knowledge going
missing again, as it did
No society is truly sustainable for any great length of time. Stuff
happens, people and cultures rise and fall. Big winds or waters
sweep the land and mess with life. Most of the indigenous peoples
have figured out a manner to survive these catastrophes as a whole,
but still the Maya,
I think we should look are moving a bit of genetic material away from
this little rock and seeding a few other rocks. Just in case and all
that.
clay
On Aug 20, 2008, at 3:31 PM, Tyler Backman wrote:
I don't think he meant that the planet could stop existing, but rather
that we could
clay monroe [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No society is truly sustainable for any great length of time. Stuff
happens, people and cultures rise and fall. Big winds or waters
sweep the land and mess with life.
Absolutely agree. As I said think this sustainable living movement
is just another
clay monroe wrote:
I think we should look are moving a bit of genetic material away from
this little rock and seeding a few other rocks. Just in case and all
that.
Something we agree on! ;) Hopefully the technology or political
environment (or both) will encourage this sooner rather
That's why I wrote the post that clarified the difference between
sustainable and immortal. There's too many different definitions of
the word sustainable to use it without an accompanying clarification
IMO.
Tyler
On Aug 20, 2008, at 11:22 PM, clay monroe wrote:
No society is truly
Now we have gotten past the semantics, to the real philosophical
disagreement :)
... living on whatever food you can find, or eeking out a living
raising crops on a small plot of land, hoping there's not a drought
this year, living long enough to hopefully reproduce at least a few
offspring
All well and good for the environment where there is no competition,
but we have outgrown that stage. We are now in a place where we all
are wanting the same resources and those are becoming far more
scarce. What happens when you exceed your bid? This came to me
while I was at the
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
What you call a wild animal existence isn't as horrible as most
people from our civilized society imagine. It's very different
(and not without serious disadvantages and shortcomings), but not
inherently inferior. I know a few people from civilized
Clay,
You have an unstated premise in your arguments: That the purpose of
human life is to contribute to economic prosperity, and the value of
each persons life is proportional to their relative contribution. This
is an inherently flawed way of looking at it, because economic systems
are
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There is a single proven sustainable way to live on our planet: the way that
indigenous peoples have been living around the world for thousands of years.
Sustainable for who (or what?). Not the people
Allan
--
1983 300D
The planet, obviously. Of course, in the ideal Fairtax world we can all
strive to earn and KEEP enough $$s to afford our own personal planet.
On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 1:44 PM, Allan Streib [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
There is a single proven sustainable way
I'm not quite sure what you're asking.
It's sustainable in that most indigenous peoples (the ones that are
still around) have found a way to use their natural resources almost
indefinitely without depleting them, and consequently wiping
themselves out. Any culture that has been living
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
Does that clarify what I mean by sustainable, what exactly is being
sustained, and why?
Not really, because if the primitive indigenous lifestyle is
sustainable, then why do so few of these societies still exist? It
seems that they are by their absence
Allan Streib wrote:
Not really, because if the primitive indigenous lifestyle is
sustainable, then why do so few of these societies still exist?
Lack of ability to defend the community from other groups of humans?
Mitch.
___
http://www.okiebenz.com
For new
Essentially the entire world was covered by indigenous societies,
already living at the maximum sustainable carrying capacity of the
land (for how they lived) until the Neolithic Revolution in the middle
east from which eventually came cultures that spread around the world
forcefully
Mitch Haley [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lack of ability to defend the community from other groups of humans?
Lions and tigers and bears, too...
Is not the defense of your tribe/village/country against enemies an
element of sustainability?
Allan
--
1983 300D
andrew strasfogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The planet, obviously. Of course, in the ideal Fairtax world we can
all strive to earn and KEEP enough $$s to afford our own personal
planet.
News flash, the planet is not going anywhere no matter what we do.
And if it is, we can't stop it.
Allan
I suppose it depends on your definition of sustainability, but I don't
think it makes any sense to lump that in. By my definition, a
sustainable way of living doesn't necessarily include an ability to
mitigate risks from major unforeseen events, but rather an ability to
continue to exist
I don't think he meant that the planet could stop existing, but rather
that we could stop existing if we don't live sustainably.
Tyler
On Aug 20, 2008, at 2:50 PM, Allan Streib wrote:
andrew strasfogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The planet, obviously. Of course, in the ideal Fairtax world
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't think he meant that the planet could stop existing, but rather
that we could stop existing if we don't live sustainably.
Perhaps. However I think that sustainability as it is used in
recent times is a code word for something else.
Allan
--
Tyler Backman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For example, say (hypothetically) that you are member of a small
tribe in the Amazon that has been living off the land in the same
way for thousands of generations,
... living on whatever food you can find, or eeking out a living
raising crops on a
If you want more taxes on people who really make this country run -
working Americans - to support yet another generation of
sit-on-your-[butt]-and-collect-a-check slackers, then Obama's your man!
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/currents/27063739.html
--R
And if you want the less wealthy to pay proportionately more in taxes, then
McCain's your man.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:11 AM, Rich Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you want more taxes on people who really make this country run -
working Americans - to support yet another generation of
andrew strasfogel wrote:
And if you want the less wealthy to pay proportionately more in taxes, then
McCain's your man.
I'd love to see, just once, somebody substantiate the 'tax breaks for the rich,
higher taxes for the poor' allegations that keep getting parroted as fact. BTW,
do you know
It's a Republican mantra to reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy,
and/or not to close the loopholes that let this class of
corporations/citizenry keep more of their income/wealth and maintain their
lifestyles. Or do I have to prove this to you as well?
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 9:59 AM,
What is a fair tax for all to pay -- % of income and total amount?
Real hard numbers, not some vague generalities please.
Reason I ask is that I always hear paying their fair share etc. and I
never hear any of them say what fair is. I suppose it depends on
where you fall on the political and
andrew strasfogel wrote:
It's a Republican mantra to reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy,
and/or not to close the loopholes that let this class of
corporations/citizenry keep more of their income/wealth and maintain their
lifestyles. Or do I have to prove this to you as well?
Yes,
Rich Thomas wrote:
What is a fair tax for all to pay -- % of income and total amount?
Real hard numbers, not some vague generalities please.
I read of an opinion poll a couple of decades ago, asking what a fair total tax
burden for somebody making X income would be, and the answers tended to
andrew strasfogel [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
It's a Republican mantra to reduce taxes on corporations and the wealthy,
and/or not to close the loopholes that let this class of
corporations/citizenry keep more of their income/wealth and maintain their
lifestyles. Or do I have to prove this to
].
No income tax, no inheritance tax, no taxes on anything except sales to
final consumer.
BillR
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Rich Thomas
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:30 AM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT
I am coming around to thinking it has to do with a moral defect in
liberals and some religious nuts that all human life is worthy of
saving. Provide all sorts of crutches so that they can continue to
wander the earth and one day something grand may come of it. Fallacy
We humans are no more
But a great many of the republican voters around here are not
actually rich, they just like to have very little big brother
intervention in their lives. There are jobs they create, but that is
so the farm continues to run.
The really rich may have created jobs for servants. There are
You, my friend, might be one of those that needs to be shipped off to
your own Soylent Green Factory since your brain has ceased to use
logic. Sometimes your logic works and is ok, but when you are way off
base and far out in your radicalism, you are beyond help.
Luther
Redghost wrote:
I am
Their fair share would be if we switched to the Fairtax. Then everyone
would pay their fair share.
Rich Thomas wrote:
What is a fair tax for all to pay -- % of income and total amount?
Real hard numbers, not some vague generalities please.
Reason I ask is that I always hear paying their
I am more concerned about the definition of the word fair when applied
to the concept of taxation by those who want to take more in taxes from
people who make more money. Since fair changes with a change in
income, I would like to see those who use that word define it, ideally
in a table of
come on Luther! There are 6.x BILLION humans around. How many of
the 300 million Americans are actually holding down a job that serves
to make the nation better or even keeps the economy chugging along?
I am thinking there are a few million folks on the mainland that
could be let go and
This is a waste of my and everyone else's time.
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 4:12 PM, Rich Thomas
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am more concerned about the definition of the word fair when applied
to the concept of taxation by those who want to take more in taxes from
people who make more money.
Fairtax a perfectly wonderful oxymoron. It's fair only to high wage
earners...
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Redghost [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
come on Luther! There are 6.x BILLION humans around. How many of
the 300 million Americans are actually holding down a job that serves
to make
, patriotic American folks that think Obama is a
terrorist.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of andrew strasfogel
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 10:28 PM
To: Mercedes Discussion List
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes - Fair Tax
This should help to clarify the complexity of each candidates take on
the tax issue. Hopefully this will shed light on which candidate
will best serve your individual needs
http://tinyurl.com/5c3kak
clay
On 19 Aug 2008, at 20:35, andrew strasfogel wrote:
Fairtax a perfectly wonderful
There are some people who believe it is right and just for the
government to take money in taxes from people who have more money, and
give it to those who have less money through various programs, grants,
tax breaks, whatever. That is their belief system.
There are some who believe it is
Rich wrote: So, these are 2 kinds of people who generally become polarized
around their valid belief systems, and neither kind is gonna change the minds
of the other though it does lead to lots of effort to try to do so. I have
thought a lot about why a person falls into one camp or the other
Donald, surely you jest! The Republicans WAY outnumber liberal Dems in
the filthy rich class, but they are generally a lot quieter about their
beliefs...
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Donald Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich wrote: So, these are 2 kinds of people who generally become
Donald Snook [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
(P.S. I am not really serious about not wanting to pay any taxes. I do
think we need schools, and roads, and bridges, and social services, But I
sure do wish I could pay less.
Many of these things you mention could be provided by the private sector
(or at
Bill Gates and his father are not poor or republican. They want to
do away with any sort of tax relief for those who they feel should be
returning the wealth to show gratitude for all they have been blessed
with.
What this does end up doing is killing the family business that now
has to
Donald Snook wrote:
There is a third category that I am included in.
I don't want to pay any taxes at all. NONE.
BUT, I also want every service the government offers.
I know I can't have it that way...
You aren't trying hard enough, because some people get all that you mention
above.
I'm in Canada where we are a fair bit more socialistic than the US of A. We pay
taxes beyond what most in the US do
and much more than we used to. I don't recall the exact numbers but I believe
the tax burden now is much greater
than it was in my father's time.
What really gets to me is what
Andrew wrote: Donald, surely you jest! The Republicans WAY outnumber liberal
Dems in the filthy rich class, but they are generally a lot quieter about
their beliefs...
I think you are incorrect about that. However, in the interest of being
accurate, I think it might be more accurate to say
In the interest of being accurate...
HAH!
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Behalf Of Donald Snook
Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 4:27 PM
To: mercedes@okiebenz.com
Subject: Re: [MBZ] OT Difference on Taxes
Andrew wrote: Donald, surely you jest
Mitch wrote: You aren't trying hard enough, because some people get all that
you mention above. Their financial standard of living is lower than yours, but
they don't have to actually do anything to maintain that reduced standard once
they get it set up. It's a lot harder than it was 30-40
Andrew,
And your source for WAY outnumber and quieter is?
Chuck
On Aug 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, andrew strasfogel wrote:
Donald, surely you jest! The Republicans WAY outnumber liberal
Dems in
the filthy rich class, but they are generally a lot quieter about
their
beliefs...
The rising cost of food means their money gets them about a third fewer
bags of groceries — $100 used to buy about 12 bags of groceries, but now
it's more like seven or eight. So they cut back on expensive items like
meat, and they don't buy extras like ice cream anymore. Instead, they
eat a
Rich Thomas wrote:
Don't work, no money, get fat. Work hard, make money, stay skinny. What
a country!
We get a certain economic vigor from immigrants. They are more motivated than
the average bear, or they'd still be sitting in the same place they were born.
Unfortunately, at least with
Intuition and a life of observing! If you care to disprove my thesis have
at it!
On Mon, Aug 18, 2008 at 6:02 PM, Chuck Landenberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Andrew,
And your source for WAY outnumber and quieter is?
Chuck
On Aug 18, 2008, at 11:32 AM, andrew strasfogel wrote:
Donald,
mhmm, living the 21st century American Dream! This attitude is of my
generation
and was instilled in us by you old folk. We do the minimal amount of work to
sustain life. Way to be!
--
Luther KB5QHUAlma, Ark
'87 300SDL (279,xxx mi)
'85 Ford F250 6.9 diesel (x59,xxx mi) BioBeast
'82
62 matches
Mail list logo
