| |
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 4:04:53 PM | Who, for example? Social engineering is the very opposite of what conservatives favor.
Well, the conservative ones don't call themselves social engineers. They call themselves developers, and their objective is to figure out how to extract as much capital gain from a given acreage as possible regardless of the long-term viability of their developments.
Some are more ethical than others, or else they realize that they will be able to realize a higher gain if they include facilities for services and amenities like schools, parks, and so on, in order to sell potential buyers on the idea of functioning communities--whether those communities actually function all that well in practice or not. Others have to be forced to include those those facilities as conditions of their permits. But they all follow a similar blueprint of how communities should be organized and built. That blueprint is based on a specific model of social organization. And that model is a conservative one.
Is it the best model? Is it the only model that could be functional? From what I've observed, it takes at least 3 adults to manage a single family home such homes are currently configured. The women's liberation movement came about, in large part, because women in these homes were socially isolated. Sure, they were very comfortable prisons in some ways, but they were prisons just the same. If my fate was to tend to one of those things for the rest of my life, I'd go out, get a job, and tell the idiot who thinks he can keep me there to go F himself. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 6:31:37 PM | Developers have no choice but to design projects to get the greatest possible return on investment. Their shareholders and banks demand it. And why would you expect them to do anything else, anyway? The ones I've talked with are businessmen, and they couldn't care less about telling anyone how to live. They're all about giving people what most of them figure to want in a certain region, at a certain price. So if experience, market research, etc. tells them buyers of single-family homes at a given price expect to get at least two 24" box shade trees, a gas fireplace, and a slate entry floor, that's what they're going to offer them. And as communities become more expensive, the amount of amenities increases.
Being ethical in development just means putting out a good product at a good price. The city or county departments dictate how they have to do it--for example, in Thousand Oaks and other nearby cities, the developer may need to realign an access road to stay a certain distance away from a native oak, grade the lots so as not to remove too much soil, and so on. Most cities require developers of large housing projects to provide internal roads, curb cuts, lighting, schools, parks, fire stations, etc., and also a connection fee to defray the cost of extending water and sewer mains. I think you'll find there's quite a range of different community layouts, some more imaginative than others. Depends on how creative the developer and its architects are. I can't agree that there's just one blueprint everyone follows, and I don't know what you mean by a "conservative" model of social organization.
You sound as if you think someone forced people to live in suburbs. They lived there because they chose to--they could have spent their money on whatever kind of housing they wanted. Suburbs have their attractions, especially for people who have kids. As they spread farther out, the driving problem gets more severe, and yet many people still prefer them. Which frustrates social planners, who are much more hip and sophisticated--like Europeans. If only these dumb people could appreciate the wonders of dense, urban living, they think. But oh, no--they have to have their stupid gas-guzzler and live 50 miles out of town, all to have their absurd water-wasting lawn! They willfully refuse to live as we know is best for them! Well, if they won't do it voluntarily, it's up to us to make sure they do what they should!
Whew! I almost felt for a moment that I was back in planning school--darn near spoiled my dinner. Think I'll light up the barbecue, smoke up the air, and have me a nice, big steak. It's the American way--live high, wide, and handsome. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 8:13:01 PM | | The notion that 97% of us are ALL victims of some kind is not true. Only in America do we see such victim mentality spewed. While we have people who have endured some type of challenge many would call them survivors NOT victims. And its the survivors who learn from whatever experience they went thru, break the cycle and become wonderful human beings. Survivors are all around us, making the world a better place for everyone. ~Beth~ | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:32:47 PM | | Yep. There is a difference between a victim and a survivors. What allows many victims the opportunity to transform themselves into survivors is the ability to speak out about what happened to them and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen to others. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:38:24 PM |
But oh, no--they have to have their stupid gas-guzzler and live 50 miles out of town, all to have their absurd water-wasting lawn! They willfully refuse to live as we know is best for them! Well, if they won't do it voluntarily, it's up to us to make sure they do what they should!
Just 'cuz the burbs aren't sustainable as they are currently configured doesn't mean they can't be updated. I have no interest in forcing people to live where they don't want to, just as I have no interest in bamboozling people into thinking they can live well in the suburbs on their own. Some can. Most can't.
I know what you mean about the planning orthodoxy, but my point is that the model we actually follow was articulated by somebody--somebody conservative. It is an engineered model. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/3/2009 10:46:53 PM | I said:
"The reality is we are ALL victims of some kind of abuse, be it spiritual, verbal, physical, emotional or sexual. "
Ace said
Yep. There is a difference between a victim and a survivors. What allows many victims the opportunity to transform themselves into survivors is the ability to speak out about what happened to them and take steps to ensure that it doesn't happen to others.
My point was simply that we are all wounded at some time as we go through life. It is just part of life the we get hurt by other people, either intentionally or innocently. It just happens. But as Ace and Zenbeth have stated, we do not have to STAY wounded or respond to others out of the woundedness. We can choose to move on beyond the hurt to become a positive influence in others lives. And for those who are "stuck" in their hurt and can't seem to move past it, get help. There are more resources available today then there have ever been in human history. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 12:05:47 AM |
the model we actually follow was articulated by somebody--somebody conservative. It is an engineered model.
I'm not sure just who you're thinking of, but the U.S. Commerce Dept. drafted the model planning code in 1924, when Herbert Hoover was Secretary. And he was an engineer by training. Since then, though, a lot of states have made substantial changes to the original planning and zoning models, to allow planned unit developments, overlay zones for particular uses, tax increment financing to make it profitable for developers to redevelop downtown areas, etc. A lot of what most Americans tend to prefer--like having a lawn or garden around the house--comes from English traditions.
There were some very inventive residential projects done in the '20s and '30's that are more successful than ever today. One of them's near Culver City, and I've been through it. It's a much nicer design than most modern subdivisions--there's a loop road around the perimeter, and every so often, a small drive leads inward from it. At their ends, these drives loop around a cluster of maybe six or eight garages and clothes lines. (These have become favorite play areas, and there's almost no car traffic.) And around the outsides of the cul-de-sac are the walled and landscaped back yards of several units.
When you go through the back gate, you enter the small private yard and then the rear of the unit. On the other side, the front doors open onto large green spaces, which connected to a very large green space in the middle of the whole thing. Drifts of trees are arranged to screen views of the next group of buildings, and the overall feeling is like living in a private park. And yet the density is higher than more recent developments like Irvine or Valencia. This design has been imitated all over the world, usually not quite as well. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:13:21 AM | Ace:
The women's liberation movement came about, in large part, because women in these homes were socially isolated
Huh? The Women's Liberation Movement came about IN LARGE PART because of Social Isolation? That they were frustrated in their role of maintaining a house and preferred to get a job?
The level of misunderstanding about the genesis of the WL Movement is staggering. Leaving the home to work was the END RESULT of the WLM. To procure the same rights to personal property, child custody, to vote, inheiritance and the right to not get our azz legally kicked by our spouse. ..THAT was the genesis of the WLM.
The Suburban Hell so wittily written about by Erma Bombeck was only suffered by those who chose to continue in a conventional married existence. The women she wrote about were all married and stayed home as caretakers of their children, home and husband. Their frustration was borne of the fruit of their decision to maintain a conventional lifestyle. The WLM provided the escape from this life if the woman were to so chose, but it was certainly not the genesis for the movement.
"Marriage has no guarantees. If that's what you're looking for, go live with a car battery."
-- Erma Bombeck
*Natasha steps down from her soapbox...and puts her feet up on the ottoman waiting for the inevitable backlash*
Carry on. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 6:59:32 AM | I don't know all of the reasons behind it, but it's hard to deny that the two income family has made it a lot more difficult to live on just one income. That's not progress in my opinion   | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:14:29 AM | A lot of things are not what they seem, but instead transparently dopey but serious sounding solutions that fit someone's idea of progress. examples:
1. Women's liberation...mostly business desiring a cheap dependable source of labor. These married women brought energy and intelligence at low wages. How to trick babes from raising their own kids and becoming a file clerk lol? tell em it's freedom HAHAHHAHAHA STOP ME!
2. Sexual revolution of the 60's and 70's was a means to break tradtional family as building block of society, sold as stopping sexual repression. I was there before the movement, Iwas not repressed:)
3. heterosexual AIDS. Oooopppsss the sexual revolution stuff is actually too successful, men are not bonding with our heretofore kitchen refugees, let's put the genie back in the bottle and send sexual energy into the work plsace.
4. global warming. Dopey lib's no longer able to sell socialism even to feeloading deadbeats who vote for them dream up end of world scenario to control people and business.
5. cap and trade. see #4
6. (Free) health care lololol. OOPPPPPPSSS we forgot to save for boomer care, let's trick these moron's into accepting less care while telling them it's more care. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:27:19 AM | gc:
Women's liberation...mostly business desiring a cheap dependable source of labor. These married women brought energy and intelligence at low wages. How to trick babes from raising their own kids and becoming a file clerk lol? tell em it's freedom HAHAHHAHAHA STOP ME!
You think we're done yet?
Cummere. Come on, I won't hurt you... | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 7:38:58 AM | I don't know all of the reasons behind it, but it's hard to deny that the two income family has made it a lot more difficult to live on just one income. That's not progress in my opinion
Nor in mine. But when the fundamental model around which society is organized proves to be both unsustainable and unworkable, people will break out of it however they can. Doesn't mean they'll construct something better.
Now, before y'all get your panties in a bunch about how the only alternative to strong nuclear families is a totalitarian state, there is another. Extended families and village-scale communities were what we evolved with. That is the model of social organization that we instinctively know. It is a model that has worked for millenia. 30-year-old women in isolation cannot be expected to successfully pass on traditional values when left home alone with the kids all day. Many can do it, but you can't _expect_ it. Basing your entire society on an assumption like that is stupid. 30-year-olds need guidance from older, more experienced people who know them, love them, and understand what's likely to be coming up for them and their kids.
The advent of the 'burbs as they are physically configured is just as large a contributor to the breakdown of our society as the insidious machinations of the commies. It is a cheap immitation of the yeoman farmer model of Jeffersonian democracy that was the original plan for our nation. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:00:06 AM | Ace, in case you don't remember, they weren't isolated. They had neighbors that helped each other deal with the challenges they shared.
What exactly is your utopia anyway? Just curious. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:16:45 AM | "Is there any scientific basis for those figures? With words like "bimodal," "
There is scientific evidence that 3% are the extreme in one direction .... the skid row addicts or otherwise people whose coping skills for life are totally ineffective. There is 23 years of experience on my part of their counterparts at the other end of the extreme --- the controlaholics. No substance that they take, just their compulsion to 'fix' all others. The extremely 'righteous' people who know they are right and if the world would do things their way than the world would be fine. In 23 years of observations I have noted that those we call 'normies' are the rarity of behaviors consistently occuring that halfway point between totally out of control (addicts, etc.) and avidly attempting to control.
For any one behavior one might be on either mode of the spectrum. The overeater who is very intolerant of smokers ... out of control yet trying to control.
If I were to do another doctorate it would likely be in this area of study. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:18:40 AM | "Developers have no choice but to design projects to get the greatest possible return on investment. Their shareholders and banks demand it. And why would you expect them to do anything else, anyway?"
This is the cornerstone of Friedman economics. The economic theory that has brought us to this crises. The theory of greed as the great motivator.
It isn't true. We have lists of socially responsible businesses and they have shown themselves to be both profitable and attractive to investors. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:23:24 AM | "Survivors are all around us, "
The only way to be a survivor is to see yourself as a victim. Rather than being survivors those of us who speak out and learn no longer see ourselves as survivors. We are thrivers. I am grateful for the experiences that honed me into the person I am today. I Thrive today. I was not the victim ... I was the one who experienced the events and grew from them. Those that were wrong are no less wrong for the fact that I was not their victim. The fact that I have learned to thrive is not to their credit. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:24:23 AM | I am pleased to announce I have just been diagnosed as a "normie". I am not an addict, nor have an addictive personality for which I thank some higher power since it's nothing I've earned, and I have zero, no negative desire to "control while calling it help" my fellows.
Now your job is to figure out how my zero interest in others dysfunction is actually a form of control lol. Sorry I have seen things in this world that were not the result of the founders, or capitalism, that shock the mind. I only know which system provides the most freedom, including the freedom for you to help souls for your own soul, or money, while allowing mankind to trudge down a path free to choose. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:28:33 AM |
Rather than being survivors those of us who speak out and learn no longer see ourselves as survivors. We are thrivers. I am grateful for the experiences that honed me into the person I am today. I Thrive today. I was not the victim ... I was the one who experienced the events and grew from them. Those that were wrong are no less wrong for the fact that I was not their victim. The fact that I have learned to thrive is not to their credit.
Well said! Mind if I try that viewpoint on for myself? | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:36:00 AM |
Now your job is to figure out how my zero interest in others dysfunction is actually a form of control...
Some might consider that "playing hard to get". Most people have the desire to be "liked", to have people interested in them. It's been shown that we desire the things we can't have. That uninterested person piques our interest. We try harder to get their attention.
Yes, you are then in control. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:39:24 AM | "To procure the same rights to personal property, child custody, to vote, inheiritance and the right to not get our azz legally kicked by our spouse. ..THAT was the genesis of the WLM."
But not by the mythical stay at home mom. In agri culture the woman was not solely occupied with raising children and housecleaning. She was responsible for much of the farming. She milked cows, raised and harvested chickens, pigs, vegtables. She was an active producer and contributor. Those who supported agri were working too. The grocers wife ran the grocery store, too. Rare were the women who were not working alongside their husbands... and they were still productive in their society with charitable work. Women were teachers and nurses.
In the industrial age she was not generally in a position to simultaneously take care of children and go work in a factory. However, the agri women were still being active contributors. The industrial area women were often at work too. Still the teachers and nurses. Still taking in sewing and borders. Still working alongside spouses in stores. For a few periods during the 20th century there was a higher rate of women at home raising children and keeping house but not otherwise contributing as she had in the earlier centuries. They were more rare than the myth of the stay at home mom leads us to believe. There weren't all that many Donna Reeds around. In the depression and both WW and Korea she was "Rosey the Riveter" .
It was the working woman who fought for her rights. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:45:04 AM | "Now your job is to figure out how my zero interest in others dysfunction is actually a form of control lol. "
ROFLMAO... ahem a 'normie' would not have posted your message #61. Way too judgemental for a normie. grins. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:49:17 AM | Natalaha my dear, dear, dear kitchen refugee. I have a humble but honest response to your challenge. 1. Love is exception making, I do not need to be no rock star. My social needs are small. 2. I once walked into the ocean of mankinds souls and did not get my shoes wet, i.e., I don't care about the love of most.
CNC Dr Friedman might take issue with you that the current economic crisis was a model of his beliefs. I mean seriously CRA? Derivatives supported by barney frank and Chriss Dodd? Government investment in business? Government involvment in health care? Labor rates?
No no, you should stick to helping drunks find the porcelain landing spot. | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:54:42 AM |
OOPPPPPPSSS we forgot to save for boomer care
You're working on a plan for ME? How sweet!
Boomer | |
|
| Why people stick with their own
Posted: 11/4/2009 8:55:21 AM | cnc: It was the denial of the fundamental rights that I indicated that was the impetus for the movement. If a woman could collect her rightful inheiritances, vote for like-minded political candidates, keep their children if they left their wife-beating husbands, they wouldn't have had the need to fight for their rights.
The movement started loooong before Rosey the Riveter got a taste of economic freedom. It isn't all about bored housewives wanting to get out of the house. There are many women even today who long for the ideal of being able to stay at home, survive on their husband's paycheck and raise their children themselves. Irrespective of contributions from women in respect to an agrarian society, staying in the home and contributing to the raising of a fine human being (children) is the finest contribution anyone can make to society.
We are not being selfish, we are being practical in a world where we cannot count on men to support us for life.
*Quiet Boomer, he wasn't talking to you! | |
|
Home
login 
