Kelowna fires

Many people in this group will know of Scott Elliot, a frequent
contributor to this forum. Scott's hometown, Kelowna, has been ravaged
by wildfires the past few weeks. I tried sending Scott a message to see
if he was ok but it bounced back. Fortunately I found a picture that
Scott took and posted on the Okanagan Mountain Fire Watch website:
http://www.castanet.net/

Here's a link to Scott's picture (unfortunately it wraps so you may have
to copy and paste it into your browser).

http://www.castanet.net/firepics/200...cott%20Elliot%
202003-08-31%2010.10pm.jpg

As far as I know I'm still here. I live on the west side of Okanagan Lake
and the fire is on the east side so I haven't even had an evacuation alert
notice. We have a good view of the lake and much of the fire from our back
yard and sun deck. We have had a lot of smoke hanging in the valley so
breathing has been a little painful at times.

The ski trails at Telemark XC Ski Club are also on this side of the lake so
they are not threatened at all. Nordic XC Ski Club has trail on the same
side of the lake, but should be far enough to the east that they should be
safe. The area where the Nordic trails are located was included in the
evacuation alert status for a few days but is now back to normal status,
although there is a bit of a flare up with winds tonight and that could
change.

We have a complete travel and access ban to forest lands in southern BC at
the present time. That means we cannot even walk on our ski trails, let
alone do any maintenance work until at least September 14. We are hosting a
NorAm race at Telemark in December and the coach from the national team was
supposed to come out and approve the courses we are going to use. That is
on hold for now too.

Scott Elliot
http://www3.telus.net/selliot/

"Michael Motek" wrote in message
news:MPG.19bf9f9d62fd4bc1989684@shawnews...
Many people in this group will know of Scott Elliot, a frequent
contributor to this forum. Scott's hometown, Kelowna, has been ravaged
by wildfires the past few weeks. I tried sending Scott a message to see
if he was ok but it bounced back. Fortunately I found a picture that
Scott took and posted on the Okanagan Mountain Fire Watch website:
http://www.castanet.net/

Here's a link to Scott's picture (unfortunately it wraps so you may have
to copy and paste it into your browser).

http://www.castanet.net/firepics/200...cott%20Elliot%
202003-08-31%2010.10pm.jpg

Jay Tegeder wrote:

Agreed



Agreed



Disagree


I guess I'm batting 666, my lucky number, with you. But sorry if I went
quite a bit off topic. As always, Jay, if you ever wish to reconsider,
we could carry on this or any other discussion off the newsgroup. But I
will not appear, with my silence, to add credence to pure falsehood or
legitimate misunderstanding on this newsgroup or anywhere. Not
something as deadly serious as the destruction of our ecosystem (and our
country by the republican agenda).


Our energy future is in new things like
hydrogen powered vehicles, ethanol based oil, gravity and the Holy
Grail, cold fusion...




Suffice to say that hydrogen vehicles have a similar problem as electric
battery cars: think about it: the power used to separate hydrogen from
water is greater than the energy derived from burning the H2. Unless we
radically change our power generation scheme (and that will never occur
magically by cutting taxes and NOT investing in research) we'll still be
polluting with Hydrogen cars.

We gotta tax something, or is our vaunted military suddenly going to be
made better by cutting its funding (as is the scheme with education in
this republican agenda)?

In case one's chemistry knowledge is a few decades stale, ethanol is not
a clean fuel --- a hydrocarbon, like petroleum, which still produces its
share of CO2, CO, NO, NO2 when burned.

And please, cold fusion? Isn't that dead yet? (I know, they're
spending millions in Utah beating the dead horse.) Sorry if I get my
dander up a little when the old BS detector goes off! But cold fusion
was one of the ugliest stories in modern charlatanism. Nothing but a
media event. Worked for them: attention, money; but no innovation, no
science, no reproducable results, no saving the planet . . .

Jim Farrell
I know a few things, but ignorant all the same. What I don't know fills
libraries (and hasn't even been discovered yet!)

Against all rational thinking ... I guess I'll jump into this fray too :-)

In article , Jay Tegeder wrote:
They don't work! All luxury taxes do is ruin the industry they tax.

Tax SUV's - ruin the SUV industry ... wouldn't that be fantastic :-)!
99% of SUV drivers could do just as well by driving a Matrix or Focus
wagon. Get the job done with half the gas-guzzling expense to the
pocket-book and environment.

Economics 101 should point that out... Once we start with luxury
taxes, where do we stop? Think about it... Do you really need those

Taxes on gasoline are not luxury taxes. It's a penalty for the real
damage being done to the environment, to people's health, etc., etc.
Making people pay for non-renewable resources only makes sense (and
not just the extraction costs).

I certainly don't claim to be perfect in this regard. I drive a lot,
own a AWD Subaru that gets 33% worse fuel economy than comparable
2WD's. But, I'd be plenty happy if gas prices suddenly doubled to
reflect the true cost (extraction + damage to environment) of burning
gasoline.

Brian

Jim Farrell wrote in message ...
Jay Tegeder wrote:


Easy boy... I agreed with most of the stuff you said. I just think
it's totally riduculous to throw in luxury taxes on certain items.
They don't work! All luxury taxes do is ruin the industry they tax.
Economics 101 should point that out... Once we start with luxury
taxes, where do we stop? Think about it... Do you really need those
cross country skis? No one uses them for transportation. They are for
pure fun. How do you think Ahvo would like it if his $300 skis
suddenly became $330? Then, the boots, poles, bindings and wax would
be taxed the luxury tax too. Instead of a $495 ski package, the price
jumps to $600. The buyer might decide to go with the less expensive
(lower quality) package for $350. Bye Bye profit margin... Bye Bye
Tom, Greg or Armen... Besides, who determines what items get taxed?
Will it be some grand liberal council appointed by Howard Dean? Jim,
there are no easy answers. Luxury taxes are an easy way to go in the
short run but they have devastating long run effects. Think about
it...

OK, I'll go easy. I wasn't really in a lather, just returned from a
party in a good mood when the alarm went off . . . But the world you
describe sounds a lot like our more civilised neighbors across the
Atlantic. Fuel taxes push the price of gas to over $4.50 USD in CH the
last time I was there. And that, to me, is a good thing --- the taxes
provide heath care, education, wonderful public transit, a strong sense
of community and the belief that government is for the betterment of
everybody not just those targeted by each round of tax cuts. Anywonder
that in this country, when the city had to raise taxes because the
funding from the state was cut to pay for the cuts from the fed that pay
for VP Cheney's personal $450,000 tax relief that the lowest valued
homes will have their property taxes go up 18% while those homes valued
at over a half million will only have their taxes go up 12% --- no one
peeps. Why do the poorest have to reap the least rewards in flush times
and take up most of the slack in the worst times? Why weren't those who
benefitted most from the great Ventura give-away asked to pay their
share now?

Jim,

If you're so excited about the extremely high gas prices and fabulous
social programs in Switzerland, you must realize the extreme stress it
is putting on their population. Switzerland is made up of cantons. The
cantons are responsible for who gets citizenship in their individual
areas. Well, the utopian cantons of Switzerland are not offering
citizenship to those immigrants who have lived there for decades
including those children of immigrants who were born in Switzerland.

Now, let's talk about the tax cuts by the Feds which so concern you.
They are not tax cuts. Repeat, they are not tax cuts. They, like here
in Minnesota, are just reductions in the spending increases. Repeat,
the spending is still increasing. It's just at a slower rate. It's
called living within your means. Families are faced with budget
decisions everyday. I think the Federal, State and Municipal systems
need to live within their means and start cutting the waste. As for
Vice President Cheney, he pays more than his share of taxes. Why
should someone who earns more have to pay a higher percentage of his
income in taxes than someone who makes less. That doesn't sound very
American to me. Should someone who makes 21,000 per year be taxed at a
higher rate than someone who makes 20,000? Where do you draw the line
Jim? Who decides in your Howard Dean Socailist Utopia? The people who
make the most money create a lot more jobs than those who don't. Is
that good or bad in your world?



I guess I'd rather live in Finland, or Canada. Someplace that takes
care of its less fortunate . . .



Jim, move to those countries and let us know in a few years how things
are going... Canada aside, you might find Euros are a little less
tolerent of those with different ethnic or cultural backgrounds. Just
ask the Turks in Germany or the Africans in Sweden. We take in more
immigrants than any country in the world. They wouldn't be coming here
if they didn't want the opportunity to better themselves (like your
ancestors). I think our system works pretty good. I've got an Iranian
neighbor who owns apartment buildings and an auto repair shop. He
started with nothing and is living the American Dream.

Jim, you're living in today's world. If you lived at the turn of the
20th Century, you would have thought airplanes, computers, internet,
atomic energy, radio and televison were impossible. There is no way
you would have believed the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System would
criss-cross the country. You wouldn't have believed people would be
skiing on boards made of fiberglass, kevlar, petex, carbon fiber etc.
Cold fusion is a dead horse to those who don't believe in the future.


It is indeed weird to be characterised as some kind of luddite by you,
Jay. Listen to a story, Jay, I was in grad school when the cold fusion
news broke. There was a lot of excitementat the School of Physics and
Astronomy, and a lot of skepticism. We were discussing it in the halls
big group arguements. People all over the country, including John
Broadhurst here at MN, were trying to reproduce the results. No one
could. You see in science, it isn't enough to make a claim, others have
to prove your experiment/theory works --- in your lab as well as theirs.
It didnt, it won't. There is no plausible reason to imagine that it
could. How could interstitial hydrogen ever overcome the huge chemical
and then atomic barriers to fuse??? The metallic crystal cannot
organise its energy thusly.

Ironically those sham miesters at Brigham Young U were trying to make a
safer hydrogen storage 'tank' for use in storing the fuel. A small
potential would release the hydrogen held between the metallic crystal.
They claimed they got more energy out than they took in. It's the old
perpetual motion machine with a new twist --- they claimed to have
observed slow neutrons --- a total fabrication they never backed down
from. Still, they are getting rich with the lie. And you are
ultimately paying for the sham with your taxes and the lack of real
reseach not being funded. What makes me hopping mad is not that you
brought it up, but that for some reason, your media is still talking
about it as if it weren't the shameful sham it was. Whatever you are
listening to, reading is at fault for not properly shielding you from
the lie or possibly purposely spreading it. What a terrible waste of
time and energy. We live in a technological society ruled by the
scientifically illiterate, to paraphrase Sagan.

Jim, you might have more in common with Ted Kaczinsky than the average
American. I'm talking about the future. Not the world we live in now.
As I said before and apparently you don't (more likely don't care to)
understand, The stuff we have today, like computers, planes,
microwaves, radio, TV and the internet, would have brought laughs from
the narrow minded thinkers at the end of the 19th Century. It's not
such a big, bad world out there. As I said before, cold fusion is not
a reality now. But dream big Jim. Current science says it's hard to do
but we keep making progress in so many areas. Let's invest in new
technology that will let us get away from oil based energy. Things are
on the horizon. Be patient.

However, if you think the U.S. is such a bad place, maybe moving
wouldn't be a bad idea for you. Your and my ancestors came here to
build a better life. They wanted to be less dependent on government.
They weren't thinking of a socialist utopia when they arrived. That's
been tried before... I don't think it worked.

Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT

wrote in message ...
Against all rational thinking ... I guess I'll jump into this fray too :-)

You might be right about the rational thinking. Plus, you're making me
fight a two front war... I hate to do that...


In article , Jay Tegeder wrote:
They don't work! All luxury taxes do is ruin the industry they tax.

Tax SUV's - ruin the SUV industry ... wouldn't that be fantastic :-)!
99% of SUV drivers could do just as well by driving a Matrix or Focus
wagon. Get the job done with half the gas-guzzling expense to the
pocket-book and environment.

Brian, who decides what car or vehicle is the right size? There are
SUVs out there that get better mileage than Jim Farrell's Mitsubishi
Diamante. I mean, do you really need a Matrix or Focus? Wouldn't a
Mini Cooper suffice for your family of four? Think about what I
wrote... I said the SUV industry employs a lot of people. The high
price and profits of the SUVs help the auto industry pay wages and
keep the price of your Focus (AWD Subaru in your case) down. Labor
doesn't go into negotiations offering to give back money. They want
pay raises. Soemthing has to pay for those pay raises.


Economics 101 should point that out... Once we start with luxury
taxes, where do we stop? Think about it... Do you really need those

Taxes on gasoline are not luxury taxes. It's a penalty for the real
damage being done to the environment, to people's health, etc., etc.
Making people pay for non-renewable resources only makes sense (and
not just the extraction costs).

Here's where you might have reconsidered joining the argument... If
you read what I wrote, I was talking about luxury taxes on SUVs. Not
gasoline taxes.


I certainly don't claim to be perfect in this regard. I drive a lot,
own a AWD Subaru that gets 33% worse fuel economy than comparable
2WD's. But, I'd be plenty happy if gas prices suddenly doubled to
reflect the true cost (extraction + damage to environment) of burning
gasoline.

Brian


What is the true cost and who decides what those figures are? Do you
buy products at the store like groceries, clothing, skis etc? Big,
giant trucks haul that stuff all over the country. They eat a lot of
fuel and smash the hell out of the highway system. Do you want to shop
at a store or do you want to hunt and fish for all of your needs. I
know the Nelson Brothers could but hey, they're the Nelson Brothers...

As for Jim Farrell, a good guy by the way, I can't let him get away
with the stuff he spews without answering.

Jay Tegeder
"On the podium if the right people don't show up!" JT

"FrontRunner" wrote in message news:

From an environmental standpoint SUVs and internal
combustion engines are the leading causes of our disappearing winter. They
moaned about the CAFE standards, but have managed, with some accounting
magic, to meet those standards.


I have to disagree. What caused the disappearing winters of the 1890s
and 1930s? Everything goes in cycles regarding the weather. I predict
a big winter for the midwest by the way... Remember the hole in the
Ozone? It closed back up. They're rethinking the Ozone hole. That
could be a natural cycle too.


As for the tax cuts, they have not accomplished much. They have shifted the
burden to the states, where programs and funding have been reduced, or state
and local taxes have increased to cover the reduced Federal monies flowing
into the local coffers.


First off, the tax cuts haven't accomplished much yet becuase they
have barely been enacted. People fail to realize that everything is
based on future projections. When this country was in it's infancy,
the model was set up for the states to determine their own needs. The
Federal government kept growing because of foolish policies. The
states have become dependent on the Feds which is not the way things
were intended. You call it a burden. I call it entitlements. Instead
of meeting the problem of reduced federal aid by examing their
programs and searching for waste, some states (influenced by short
term thinking politicians) are crying about the problem. Once again,
where do you draw the line? What programs would you want in your
perfect world? Do you want to save welfare in some form? Yeah, that
sounds like a good idea. Take local, county, state and Federal
government buildings for example. There are plenty of instances where
sharing a building works. That saves money. Ending some of the
ridiculous regulations on schools would save money etc. Do we really
need a Director of Diversity in the school district?

Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT








The FrontRunner


"Jay Tegeder" wrote in message
om...
wrote in message
...
Against all rational thinking ... I guess I'll jump into this fray too
:-)

You might be right about the rational thinking. Plus, you're making me
fight a two front war... I hate to do that...


In article , Jay Tegeder
wrote:
They don't work! All luxury taxes do is ruin the industry they tax.

Tax SUV's - ruin the SUV industry ... wouldn't that be fantastic :-)!
99% of SUV drivers could do just as well by driving a Matrix or Focus
wagon. Get the job done with half the gas-guzzling expense to the
pocket-book and environment.

Brian, who decides what car or vehicle is the right size? There are
SUVs out there that get better mileage than Jim Farrell's Mitsubishi
Diamante. I mean, do you really need a Matrix or Focus? Wouldn't a
Mini Cooper suffice for your family of four? Think about what I
wrote... I said the SUV industry employs a lot of people. The high
price and profits of the SUVs help the auto industry pay wages and
keep the price of your Focus (AWD Subaru in your case) down. Labor
doesn't go into negotiations offering to give back money. They want
pay raises. Soemthing has to pay for those pay raises.


Economics 101 should point that out... Once we start with luxury
taxes, where do we stop? Think about it... Do you really need those

Taxes on gasoline are not luxury taxes. It's a penalty for the real
damage being done to the environment, to people's health, etc., etc.
Making people pay for non-renewable resources only makes sense (and
not just the extraction costs).

Here's where you might have reconsidered joining the argument... If
you read what I wrote, I was talking about luxury taxes on SUVs. Not
gasoline taxes.


I certainly don't claim to be perfect in this regard. I drive a lot,
own a AWD Subaru that gets 33% worse fuel economy than comparable
2WD's. But, I'd be plenty happy if gas prices suddenly doubled to
reflect the true cost (extraction + damage to environment) of burning
gasoline.

Brian


What is the true cost and who decides what those figures are? Do you
buy products at the store like groceries, clothing, skis etc? Big,
giant trucks haul that stuff all over the country. They eat a lot of
fuel and smash the hell out of the highway system. Do you want to shop
at a store or do you want to hunt and fish for all of your needs. I
know the Nelson Brothers could but hey, they're the Nelson Brothers...

As for Jim Farrell, a good guy by the way, I can't let him get away
with the stuff he spews without answering.

Jay Tegeder
"On the podium if the right people don't show up!" JT

It would be nice if someone was on my side once in awhile. However, I
think a lot of people who think like me are afraid to speak up because
of the ridicule they might get from people who don't understand the
whole picture.

That being said, the Govier study you mention fits your parameters in
your opinion. However, you know there is an "equal and opposite
reaction" response study out there. While your Govier example might
fit nicely in a subjective argument, we're talking economics here.
That is something that isn't subjective. As a result, the study
doesn't stand up.

There are a couple of problems in this country that make our lives
more difficult. One is the incessant brainwashing of our grade,
secondary and collrgiate students by a liberal education system.

The other is the neglect of the populace to educate themselves on
politics, economics and the relationship of government to the people.
Why do you think elections are so close? The majority of the
population is easily led by soundbites, false political ads and short
term solutions to long term problems.

I admire the people on the left (even though I think they are totally
wrong) and the people on the right (wrong in many instances too) for
their acculation of knowledge and their desire to learn the facts.
Even if they might make cafeteria decisions.

An example in Minnesota would be the late Senator Paul Wellstone. I
admired the guy for his dedication and desire to improve the lives of
the average Minnesotan. The guy was incredibly dedicated to his
beliefs and worked tirelessly. However, I think the policies he
advocated were mostly wrong.

Jay Tegeder
"Keep training, lycra never lies!" JT


"Justin F. Knotzke" wrote in message ...
quote who= Jay Tegeder /:

Brian, who decides what car or vehicle is the right size? There are
SUVs out there that get better mileage than Jim Farrell's Mitsubishi
Diamante. I mean, do you really need a Matrix or Focus? Wouldn't a
Mini Cooper suffice for your family of four? Think about what I
wrote... I said the SUV industry employs a lot of people. The high
price and profits of the SUVs help the auto industry pay wages and
keep the price of your Focus (AWD Subaru in your case) down. Labor
doesn't go into negotiations offering to give back money. They want
pay raises. Soemthing has to pay for those pay raises.

I'm not Brian but allow me to answer this if I may. Mr Tegeder you
have used the slippery assimulation fallacy a few times in this thread.
It is a commonly used fallacy.

According to Trudy Govier[1] "The fallacy of slippery assimulation
occurs when someone reasons that because there is a series of cases
differing only slightly from each other; all cases in the series are the
same.

Your argument is that there is such a small difference between the
Mitsubishi Diamente and a SUV falls into this fallacy.

Govier uses the example, "Because there is a gradual progression,
ounce by ounce, from weighing 100lbs to weighing 300lbs, thre is no one
spot where you can draw the line between thing and being fat therefore
everyone is really fat."

Your argument needs to attack the premises directly not some false
assimulation that somehow negats the argument.

J

[1] Trudy Govier, A Practical Study of Argument, 1988, Wadsworth
Publishing.

Jay Tegeder wrote:
Now, let's talk about the tax cuts by the Feds which so concern you.
They are not tax cuts. Repeat, they are not tax cuts. They, like here
in Minnesota, are just reductions in the spending increases. Repeat,

Actually, no, seen over a few years the recent reductions in federal taxes
are shifts in taxation from the federal government to the states and
localities. I mean, someone has to pay for education, roads, parks, public
health, welfare, etc. The question is how much will actually get shifted.
Bush and his conservative advisors/supporters hope that the end result of
federal tax cuts will not only be political benefit for themselves, but an
overall effect of cutting social and societal (education, roads, etc.)
expenditurs and programs. This is both ideological and economic (where
ideology comes from) - in a capitalist system all government expenditures
come out of business profits, however they derive to the gov't. Bush & Co.
represent corporate America with a vengeance, with a view akin to that
which dominated American political life in the late 19th/early 20th
century. They also know that it's much harder to raise taxes at a local
level, and such a battle will have to be fought over and over at each of
the 50 states and numerous localities, where big business money has
historically had much more influence.

should someone who earns more have to pay a higher percentage of his
income in taxes than someone who makes less. That doesn't sound very
American to me. Should someone who makes 21,000 per year be taxed at a
higher rate than someone who makes 20,000? Where do you draw the line
Jim? Who decides in your Howard Dean Socailist Utopia? The people who
make the most money create a lot more jobs than those who don't. Is
that good or bad in your world?

Excuse me, Jay, but the America you reside in has had a *progressive*
income tax system for quite a long time, first during and after the Civil
War, and then continuously from around 1913, when the 16th Amendment to the
Constitution allowing income taxes was ratified. In the last decade or
two, with the dominance of conservative economic and social policies, the
degree of prgrogressiveness has been considerably chipped away at, but even
now some pay 15% and some pay 28 or 35% or whatever it is.

Now, here's the kicker. If, as you say, government expenditures have been
going up relative to inflation, and the absolute and deduction-based tax
rates for the wealthier sections of the population have gone down, then it
would follow that the relative tax burden has shifted even more downward
into the middle and lower classes (that's definitely the case for user
taxes). If that's true, then your argument about what's "American" and not
is particularly self-defeating, since you are just one more of us on the
short end of the equation. To highlight this even more, if you check
income stats for the US, you'll find that except for a little blip at the
end of the 90s, average individual income has been falling steadily on an
inflation-adjusted basis since the early 1970s. Depending on family
configurations, that has meant relatively less and less money to pay more
taxes - for you, me, the others here, and most of the rest of the
population. Bringing it back to this newsgroup, less money left to buy
cross country skis and support ski resorts (something to consider in terms
of industry trends).
Note: This has been one of the most puzzling subject diversions I've ever
seen on rsn. We're a long way from Kelowna and the plight of Scott and his
neigbors. I mean, forest fires predate claims about global warming.

Gene

(George Cleveland) wrote in message ...
On 6 Sep 2003 17:18:55 -0700, (Jay Tegeder) wrote:


Jeez, Mr. Tegeder that is a lot of baloney. Where do I start? Taxes pay for
spending. A spending reduction is not a tax reduction. The ploy that politicians
have used since Ronnie Raygun to reduce spending is to cut taxes enough to drive
up the deficit. Then they say "We have this huge deficit we must cut
programs!!!" They do this instead of having the guts to reduce the spending
first so that there is a surplus and then cutting taxes to meet the reduced need
for revenue.


First off, I don't think you need to bew so formal with the Mr Tegeder
crap. Hey George!!! It's not the Republicans who don't have the guts
to reduce spending. It's the Democrats whose very survival depends on
a population in need of government assistance.

It is the action of political cowards and opportunists.
The reason that the Cheneys of the world pay a higher tax rate is because their
income directly derives from the increased social infrastucture that public
expenditures develop. Left to his own devices, in a world without universal
education, widespread publicly funded transportation arteries and a defense
capable of defending his country's interests, the Cheneys of the world would be
just another set of peasants. He and his ilk produce nothing. Every bit of
material wealth you see and value was produced by the labor that extracted the
raw materials from the ground, transformed that material into goods, carried
those goods to a distribution hub and sold it to you and others. The
capitalists are no more than an efficient way of providing a feedback loop for
the distribution of the monetary wealth that the material wealth is transformed


Now here's where we get into the baloney George! You sound like Engels
and Marks! "Socialist Workers of the World Unite!" Yeah labor
extracted and produced the products. However, capitalist investment
took the risk to start those companies and create the jobs. Or don't
you understand that? This is America. Nobody holds a gun to your head
to take a certain job. If you don't like where you work, start your
own company or go somewhere else. Your socialist crap is nothing but
B.S.



I guess I'd rather live in Finland, or Canada. Someplace that takes
care of its less fortunate . . .


There is no huge move in those countries to immigrate here so I guess they are
voting with their feet and saying "You guys make good movies but a terrible
society. We'll stay put, thank you."



Think about what you said... Some do immigrate here but they don't
have it that bad in their countries either. However, they keep a lot
less of their income and are far more dependent on the government.
Many of the Euros would be lost in a society that doesn't take care of
their every need. They haven't learned to be entrepenuers. That's why
most of the big inventions come from the U.S. They also might be
afraid of our crime here in the U.S. You can thank liberal courts for
that.

Some of my Norwegian ancestors came here to escape the Royalists and build a
socialist society, which at that time wasn't in existence in Norway. Some came
because they didn't have any land to farm. One came to convert the members of
the Norwegian Lutheran church to his sects vision of what Norwegian Lutherism
should be. They definitely didn't come here to get rich. I agree that most of
todays immigrants come here chasing the golden calf.

They came here because life in Norway wasn't so good back then. Plus,
many arrived in Minnesota and North Dakota to get the land to farm.
Tremendous farmland where all they had to do was turn aplow into the
prairie. I'm glad you realize the hard work and capitalist goals of
the current immigrants though.

But the society that
functions in a way to grotesquely reward greed also is a society that ignores
the aspects of human existence that are not measured in monetary gain. It is no
accident that our society is the most violent industrial nation on earth. It is
no accident that we are the most anti-intellectual western democracy on earth.


Greed creates jobs and the demands for products and services.
Apparently you don't understand economics. As for our society being
the most violent, check my response about the liberal court system. I
can cite examples for you if you don't get it. As for being
anti-intelectual, you've got to be kidding... We are fed crap by an
extremely liberal media groomed by and extremely liberal journalism
school bent in this country.

Jay Tegeder
"I faders spar for framtids segrar"