StevenSeagal Posted March 4, 2008 Author Posted March 4, 2008 but i think i hero worshipped him and his teachings, ...isn't that what krishnamurti especially excoriated his listeners not to do? yeah of course. that was pretty central. but think of the difficulty this sets up for a young inquisitive mind looking for meaning and answers in a culture seemingly bereft of them: here's a fellow who seems to saying a lot of shit that makes sense. but in the end, it's HIS game, right? there's no way i could have digested his game so entirely as to be completely independent of it, at that time. especially when his game was quite revolutionary and "out there" for me, ie. not only intellectually challenging, but emotionally as well. i didn't have "solidity" in my own life, and here's a guy presenting "answers", see? and no, the irony of it all wasn't lost on me, and as a matter of fact made it even harder, cuz here's a dude saying "this is the way it is" (which he was, in many ways, no matter his disclaimers, AND I COULDN'T ARGUE WITH HARDLY ANY OF IT, CUZ IT RANG TRUE!), yet saying "don't listen to me for answers.". anyways, that was my uncomfortable dilemma which may or may not make sense, but to read about his foibles was actually liberating for me at the time.... I just read through that- very interesting, a lot about the man's personal life I had never heard before. Indeed, "don't listen to me" somewhat contradicts the strident message of relationship he advocated; at the same time his teachings about the dangers of psychological adherance to authority remain important. It makes you wonder. Since virtually all spiritual figures have been demonstrated to have led lives that were hypocritical or at least inconsistent with what they taught...can one see through/beyond the 'speaker' and remain focused strictly on the message to find out whether what is being said is true or not? I have always had doubts about K just like I do about anyone, but I also notice that people are quick to dismiss the message when the messenger is proven to not practice what they preach. Indeed, it's an eye opening perspective, especially in k's case, to realize what was written in the end of the link: "if he can't live it, who can?". Having understood and digested that, I remain convinced that despite his own failings, there remains a great deal of truth in the things he asserted. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 i definitely agree with you. what he said was, and IS, relevant, and i think highly so. (A message can ring with insight, even if the messenger is corrupt.) Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 anyone got a match? Rob, lighting your own farts is so 8th grade. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 4, 2008 Author Posted March 4, 2008 Okay then, back on topic: From www.rushlimbaugh.com today: Story #6: Eco-Terrorists Blow Up Luxury Seattle Homes RUSH: Did you see these houses have been blown up out there in Seattle by the Earth Liberation Front? This is serious. These are not just fires. These are explosions. A bunch of these houses -- well-to-do houses. Yes, there are well-to-do liberals, and some of them just lost their homes to an extremist left-wing group. Environmentalist wackos: the peaceful, the tolerant, the kind, the sweet, the understanding. The Earth Liberation Front has blown up all these houses. Are they claiming credit for it or did they...? They believe it's them, but did they leave some kind of a calling card around? Is there something to indicate it's ELF in one of these houses? Well, I hate to say I told you so, but, Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Sprawl is progress? How much more progress can we take before there isn't anyplace to plant food? Look around you. We are past a sustainable limit and the planet is showing signs of cutting us off. Yes, sprawl = progress. It means more people with the money to live where they want, in their own home, with a little land. Everywhere you look, sprawl is associated with freedom and wealth. As to running out of places to plant foor - you're kidding right? Have you ever flown across country? Look out the window. The whole country is nothing but woods and farmland, desert and mountain. People have hardly made a dent on the land in the US. Did you know that if every single household in the US lived on a one acre parcel, that would leave 96% of the country untouched? Quote
Bug Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 And there is nothing worth saving at the poles right? Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Did you know that if every single household in the US lived on a one acre parcel, that would leave 96% of the country untouched? that's really not true. you hav to account for infrastructure, and where in all likely-hood the settlement would be. the problem with sprawl is WHAT is being sprawled upon, ie. sensitive ecosystems, small farms, other areas that would most benefit the public at large. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted March 4, 2008 Author Posted March 4, 2008 Sprawl is progress? How much more progress can we take before there isn't anyplace to plant food? Look around you. We are past a sustainable limit and the planet is showing signs of cutting us off. Yes, sprawl = progress. It means more people with the money to live where they want, in their own home, with a little land. Everywhere you look, sprawl is associated with freedom and wealth. Or, does it mean poor planning with no foresight, driven by monied interests? As to running out of places to plant foor - you're kidding right? Have you ever flown across country? Look out the window. The whole country is nothing but woods and farmland, desert and mountain. People have hardly made a dent on the land in the US. Sure looks like it: Did you know that if every single household in the US lived on a one acre parcel, that would leave 96% of the country untouched? And the resources used to supply, feed, transport all those people take up how more more space? Quote
Mal_Con Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Yesterday. I heard our local KIRO Rush Dori Munson saying that all environmental groups and local governments that have land use regulations are the same as ELF. Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 There are 2.3 billion acres in the US. Of these, 1.9 billion are in the lower 48. Only 6.1% of all land is occupied by urban development or rural residential development. Of that, about 1/3 consists of lots larger than 10 acres. We use another 18% of the land to grow crops, but almost all of this is used to grow livestock feed. Less than 1/10th of 1% of land in the US is used to grow fruit and vegies. The rest of the land in the US is split pretty much evenly between grasslands and forests. That's almost 80% of the land in the lower 48. I don't think we're running out of land anything soon. Quote
sexual_chocolate Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 There are 2.3 billion acres in the US. Of these, 1.9 billion are in the lower 48. Only 6.1% of all land is occupied by urban development or rural residential development. Of that, about 1/3 consists of lots larger than 10 acres. We use another 18% of the land to grow crops, but almost all of this is used to grow livestock feed. Less than 1/10th of 1% of land in the US is used to grow fruit and vegies. The rest of the land in the US is split pretty much evenly between grasslands and forests. That's almost 80% of the land in the lower 48. I don't think we're running out of land anything soon. you have to account for infrastructure, and where in all likely-hood the settlement would be. the problem with sprawl is WHAT is being sprawled upon, ie. sensitive ecosystems, small farms, other areas that would most benefit the public at large. Quote
ivan Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Sure looks like it: looks like canada's running out of time before our glorious Manifest Destiny's gonna have to reassert itself again Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 you have to account for infrastructure, and where in all likely-hood the settlement would be. the problem with sprawl is WHAT is being sprawled upon, ie. sensitive ecosystems, small farms, other areas that would most benefit the public at large. Infrastructure is include in the 6.1% of occupied land. The problem with sprawl is not WHAT is being sprawled upon, but WHERE. Namely, everyone wants to be the last person the purchase a house in their town/city/state. It's a question of proximity. People don't care about small farms, they care about having a small farm near their house. There are plenty of small farms, just move to Vermont or Iowa or Oklahoma or Texas or upstate New York or North Carolina... Quote
No. 13 Baby Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 There are plenty of small farms, just move to [. . .] Iowa or Oklahoma or Texas or [. . .] or North Carolina... Don't threaten me! Quote
minx Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 PLC interesting information. Where did you find it. I'm curious about a ccouple of things Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Here's a satellite image of the Pacific Northwest to counter the lights at night image... Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 All data comes from the US Department of Agriculture. Just search for USDA "Major Uses of Land in the United States" Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Here's a satellite image of the Pacific Northwest to counter the lights at night image... Regarding the lights at night image. Seems we should all start learning to raise with the sun and sleep at sunset? OK, tough in the winter (unless we want to sleep 14+ hours a day). But perhaps there should be controlled brownouts? No more nightclubs, concerts, and anything that burns/wastes energy at night? NO more street lamps, lights on at the office, etc? I'm sure every environmentally conscious person here would go along with that right? To save the planet. And while we're at it, no more escalators and elevators. Quote
rob Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 This is an amazing thread. I've never before heard anybody (seriously) state the opinion that "sprawl is an unmitigated good" or that "there are plenty of small farms in america." Bravo! The world needs more people like you. Out of curiosity, do you drive a hummer? Quote
PLC Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 Out of curiosity, do you drive a hummer? No, I own a Toyota Sequoia and an Infiniti G35, but I'm thinking about trading in the Infiniti to get one of the new Audi R8s. By the way, were you aware that the number of small farms in America is growing by 2% per year? Quote
rob Posted March 4, 2008 Posted March 4, 2008 (edited) Is global warming a myth, too? Oh, and how about evolution? Gravity? Just curious Edited March 4, 2008 by rob Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.