Roody
02-03-09, 01:49 PM
Sorry all other posters for wasting your time by getting into with this guy. Am I the only one he feels the need to moan to on every single thread?
That does appear to be the case.
That does appear to be the case.
Living Car Free - Is it a political act to ride a bicycle?
Bikeforums.net is a forum about nothing but bikes. Our community can help you find information about hard-to-find and localized information like bicycle tours, specialties like where in your area to have your recumbent bike serviced, or what are the best bicycle tires and seats for the activities you use your bike for.Robert Foster
02-03-09, 05:08 PM
I already told you in detail about the plan I like, and took a lot of time to answer your questions. So If you have a counterproposal, write about it. Don't insult me by giving me links. It's tacky--like giving cash for a birthday present.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were opposed to reading about a plan actually being considered by a state government. My bad. :twitchy:
I propose no new taxes. Period. The president we now have has said as much just the other night on TV. You can’t tax on one hand and give a stimulus package with the other. With the current economy any fuel tax would be punitive at the pump for the same people we know it will effect more. You can't have a tax neutral plan at the pump unless you can give back to the person paying out of their wallet at the time they get the gas the same amount you charge. Your plan would call for some kind of refund at the very least. You couldn’t tell how much to give back until someone had submitted some kind of receipt as to what they had bought in fuel. Then you have to create a department of fuel tax refunds to process those receipts. Would be a job works program I suppose but you need to fund it. Plus it simply doesn’t happen. The government is complaining that our modest 6 percent reduction in driving last year has reduced tax revenue to the point that they are considering other plans to increase taxes to cover the loss.
At a time when people are losing their houses and jobs it seems counter productive to tax the consumer more at the pump with the promise to give it back to them at some point. Yes people may drive less and if they drive less the tax you propose will not fund the infrastructure everyone seems to feel we need. A contention the governor or Oregon makes for his mileage plan. The government tends to keep your tax payments you submit your paperwork on April 15th. Sooner if you get your forms ready sooner. A Fuel tax to the working poor would require them to cover that cost till that time. So the choices are simple. If you are on a tight budget you can pay the fuel tax to get to work or you can stay home and not work. More than likely you can't afford to move closer to work nor could you afford to buy a new vehicle.
I believe your fuel tax plan could quite possible break the back of the workers making minimum wages. Yes they could get the money back at the end of the year but most often they live paycheck to paycheck.
So again I say, no new taxes during this economic crisis at least. That is my plan. If we the people are expected to learn to live within our budget then it only stands to reason the government should as well.
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were opposed to reading about a plan actually being considered by a state government. My bad. :twitchy:
I propose no new taxes. Period. The president we now have has said as much just the other night on TV. You can’t tax on one hand and give a stimulus package with the other. With the current economy any fuel tax would be punitive at the pump for the same people we know it will effect more. You can't have a tax neutral plan at the pump unless you can give back to the person paying out of their wallet at the time they get the gas the same amount you charge. Your plan would call for some kind of refund at the very least. You couldn’t tell how much to give back until someone had submitted some kind of receipt as to what they had bought in fuel. Then you have to create a department of fuel tax refunds to process those receipts. Would be a job works program I suppose but you need to fund it. Plus it simply doesn’t happen. The government is complaining that our modest 6 percent reduction in driving last year has reduced tax revenue to the point that they are considering other plans to increase taxes to cover the loss.
At a time when people are losing their houses and jobs it seems counter productive to tax the consumer more at the pump with the promise to give it back to them at some point. Yes people may drive less and if they drive less the tax you propose will not fund the infrastructure everyone seems to feel we need. A contention the governor or Oregon makes for his mileage plan. The government tends to keep your tax payments you submit your paperwork on April 15th. Sooner if you get your forms ready sooner. A Fuel tax to the working poor would require them to cover that cost till that time. So the choices are simple. If you are on a tight budget you can pay the fuel tax to get to work or you can stay home and not work. More than likely you can't afford to move closer to work nor could you afford to buy a new vehicle.
I believe your fuel tax plan could quite possible break the back of the workers making minimum wages. Yes they could get the money back at the end of the year but most often they live paycheck to paycheck.
So again I say, no new taxes during this economic crisis at least. That is my plan. If we the people are expected to learn to live within our budget then it only stands to reason the government should as well.
gerv
02-03-09, 05:54 PM
I believe your fuel tax plan could quite possible break the back of the workers making minimum wages. Yes they could get the money back at the end of the year but most often they live paycheck to paycheck.
I don't believe this one. There are a lot of other countries where fuel taxation is a lot higher and workers still manage to get around. At a certain point, they may even change their behaviour to reduce expenses. For example at a certain price point, car pooling becomes an attractive alternative (after all, there are normally 3 vacant seats in every moving vehicle...)
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
I don't believe this one. There are a lot of other countries where fuel taxation is a lot higher and workers still manage to get around. At a certain point, they may even change their behaviour to reduce expenses. For example at a certain price point, car pooling becomes an attractive alternative (after all, there are normally 3 vacant seats in every moving vehicle...)
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
zeppinger
02-03-09, 06:42 PM
I don't believe this one. There are a lot of other countries where fuel taxation is a lot higher and workers still manage to get around. At a certain point, they may even change their behaviour to reduce expenses. For example at a certain price point, car pooling becomes an attractive alternative (after all, there are normally 3 vacant seats in every moving vehicle...)
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
Agreed, even the pope recently announced that the over-consumption of energy was a sin, so why not add it to the sin taxes? In the end, if you ween people away from oil then do you not actually put money BACK into their pockets? The poorest people I know, that is that live in the Sacramento area so it may not always apply, live very close to work for just this reason. Its the suburban upper middle class that over-consumes gas and has the ability to move closer to work. The poorest people work at essentially interchangeable customer service or production jobs, easy to switch jobs rather than move... Fast food is another example.
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
Agreed, even the pope recently announced that the over-consumption of energy was a sin, so why not add it to the sin taxes? In the end, if you ween people away from oil then do you not actually put money BACK into their pockets? The poorest people I know, that is that live in the Sacramento area so it may not always apply, live very close to work for just this reason. Its the suburban upper middle class that over-consumes gas and has the ability to move closer to work. The poorest people work at essentially interchangeable customer service or production jobs, easy to switch jobs rather than move... Fast food is another example.
Robert Foster
02-03-09, 07:40 PM
I don't believe this one. There are a lot of other countries where fuel taxation is a lot higher and workers still manage to get around. At a certain point, they may even change their behaviour to reduce expenses. For example at a certain price point, car pooling becomes an attractive alternative (after all, there are normally 3 vacant seats in every moving vehicle...)
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
Does the majority get to vote on who to punish? :D Or are we not interested in voting either? :lol:
This has gone way beyond bicycles and into the realm of Socialism verses Capitalism. It must be time to take my leave and find something about bicycling. But I guess I know what ideas I could never vote for. Taxing my neighbors to punish them is one idea I can't get behind. I am one of those rare people that like my fellow Americans.
I guess the OPs origional question ran out a long time ago. I came in here to talk about bicycles and how people viewed bicycling. Have a good week.
Myself I'm in favour of punitively taxing bad behaviour. Many people stop smoking cigarettes when they become too expensive to buy.
Does the majority get to vote on who to punish? :D Or are we not interested in voting either? :lol:
This has gone way beyond bicycles and into the realm of Socialism verses Capitalism. It must be time to take my leave and find something about bicycling. But I guess I know what ideas I could never vote for. Taxing my neighbors to punish them is one idea I can't get behind. I am one of those rare people that like my fellow Americans.
I guess the OPs origional question ran out a long time ago. I came in here to talk about bicycles and how people viewed bicycling. Have a good week.
Roody
02-04-09, 12:30 PM
Sorry, I didn’t realize you were opposed to reading about a plan actually being considered by a state government. My bad. :twitchy:
I propose no new taxes. Period. The president we now have has said as much just the other night on TV. You can’t tax on one hand and give a stimulus package with the other. With the current economy any fuel tax would be punitive at the pump for the same people we know it will effect more. You can't have a tax neutral plan at the pump unless you can give back to the person paying out of their wallet at the time they get the gas the same amount you charge. Your plan would call for some kind of refund at the very least. You couldn’t tell how much to give back until someone had submitted some kind of receipt as to what they had bought in fuel. Then you have to create a department of fuel tax refunds to process those receipts. Would be a job works program I suppose but you need to fund it. Plus it simply doesn’t happen. The government is complaining that our modest 6 percent reduction in driving last year has reduced tax revenue to the point that they are considering other plans to increase taxes to cover the loss.
At a time when people are losing their houses and jobs it seems counter productive to tax the consumer more at the pump with the promise to give it back to them at some point. Yes people may drive less and if they drive less the tax you propose will not fund the infrastructure everyone seems to feel we need. A contention the governor or Oregon makes for his mileage plan. The government tends to keep your tax payments you submit your paperwork on April 15th. Sooner if you get your forms ready sooner. A Fuel tax to the working poor would require them to cover that cost till that time. So the choices are simple. If you are on a tight budget you can pay the fuel tax to get to work or you can stay home and not work. More than likely you can't afford to move closer to work nor could you afford to buy a new vehicle.
I believe your fuel tax plan could quite possible break the back of the workers making minimum wages. Yes they could get the money back at the end of the year but most often they live paycheck to paycheck.
So again I say, no new taxes during this economic crisis at least. That is my plan. If we the people are expected to learn to live within our budget then it only stands to reason the government should as well.
I don't know how many ways I can explain this, but I'll gladly try again. It's very different from anything ever done in this country, so it's hard for people to get a handle on it.
The plan I wrote about is "revenue neutral". That means the government doesn't make any money on it and taxpayers on average aren't paying the government any extra either.
There have been a number of proposals on how to do this. I favor one where the carbon tax is paid at the end point. For gas, that means at the pump. Hypothetically, let's put on a carbon tax of $2 a gallon. Let's also assume that the average consumer buys 15 gallons of gas a week. They will be paying $30 more per week for gas, so the government will give every taxpayer an additional $30 a week. The best way to do this, IMO, is to simply deduct $30 less in income tax from their weekly paycheck. So everybody is taking home $30 more every week on their paycheck.
What can they do with this extra $30 a week? Anything they damn well want to! If they want to continue to buy gas, that's fine. If they want to buy bike parts or bus tokens, better yet. Many will choose to buy a more economical car. Anybody who buys less than 15 gallons of gas will have more money than they did before. Anybody who buys more than 15 gallons of gas will have less money than they did before.
The purpose of the law is to make excess driving more expensive. The purpose is to get gasoline consumption down significantly, while hurting taxpayers as little as possible.
This is not socialism!! This is the proposal put forward by Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer), one of the most respected commentators in the world. It was published in in the Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard)--an ultra-conservative journal started by William Kristol.
I propose no new taxes. Period. The president we now have has said as much just the other night on TV. You can’t tax on one hand and give a stimulus package with the other. With the current economy any fuel tax would be punitive at the pump for the same people we know it will effect more. You can't have a tax neutral plan at the pump unless you can give back to the person paying out of their wallet at the time they get the gas the same amount you charge. Your plan would call for some kind of refund at the very least. You couldn’t tell how much to give back until someone had submitted some kind of receipt as to what they had bought in fuel. Then you have to create a department of fuel tax refunds to process those receipts. Would be a job works program I suppose but you need to fund it. Plus it simply doesn’t happen. The government is complaining that our modest 6 percent reduction in driving last year has reduced tax revenue to the point that they are considering other plans to increase taxes to cover the loss.
At a time when people are losing their houses and jobs it seems counter productive to tax the consumer more at the pump with the promise to give it back to them at some point. Yes people may drive less and if they drive less the tax you propose will not fund the infrastructure everyone seems to feel we need. A contention the governor or Oregon makes for his mileage plan. The government tends to keep your tax payments you submit your paperwork on April 15th. Sooner if you get your forms ready sooner. A Fuel tax to the working poor would require them to cover that cost till that time. So the choices are simple. If you are on a tight budget you can pay the fuel tax to get to work or you can stay home and not work. More than likely you can't afford to move closer to work nor could you afford to buy a new vehicle.
I believe your fuel tax plan could quite possible break the back of the workers making minimum wages. Yes they could get the money back at the end of the year but most often they live paycheck to paycheck.
So again I say, no new taxes during this economic crisis at least. That is my plan. If we the people are expected to learn to live within our budget then it only stands to reason the government should as well.
I don't know how many ways I can explain this, but I'll gladly try again. It's very different from anything ever done in this country, so it's hard for people to get a handle on it.
The plan I wrote about is "revenue neutral". That means the government doesn't make any money on it and taxpayers on average aren't paying the government any extra either.
There have been a number of proposals on how to do this. I favor one where the carbon tax is paid at the end point. For gas, that means at the pump. Hypothetically, let's put on a carbon tax of $2 a gallon. Let's also assume that the average consumer buys 15 gallons of gas a week. They will be paying $30 more per week for gas, so the government will give every taxpayer an additional $30 a week. The best way to do this, IMO, is to simply deduct $30 less in income tax from their weekly paycheck. So everybody is taking home $30 more every week on their paycheck.
What can they do with this extra $30 a week? Anything they damn well want to! If they want to continue to buy gas, that's fine. If they want to buy bike parts or bus tokens, better yet. Many will choose to buy a more economical car. Anybody who buys less than 15 gallons of gas will have more money than they did before. Anybody who buys more than 15 gallons of gas will have less money than they did before.
The purpose of the law is to make excess driving more expensive. The purpose is to get gasoline consumption down significantly, while hurting taxpayers as little as possible.
This is not socialism!! This is the proposal put forward by Charles Krauthammer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Krauthammer), one of the most respected commentators in the world. It was published in in the Weekly Standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weekly_Standard)--an ultra-conservative journal started by William Kristol.
billew
02-04-09, 01:20 PM
For my own thought on the original question my answer is, my not having ever had a drivers license is political only because i care for the air I breathe. I have no qualms about becoming a socialist because I ride the train or bus to work. I think there should be a use tax based on gross vehicle weight with exceptions for work trucks and a sliding scale for fuel use the less you use the more you save.
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
and bob foster, Tom Jefferson never said that quote, source: monticello.org
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
and bob foster, Tom Jefferson never said that quote, source: monticello.org
I-Like-To-Bike
02-04-09, 02:06 PM
For my own thought on the original question my answer is, my not having ever had a drivers license is political only because i care for the air I breathe. I have no qualms about becoming a socialist because I ride the train or bus to work. I think there should be a use tax based on gross vehicle weight with exceptions for work trucks and a sliding scale for fuel use the less you use the more you save.
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
YOU care about the air you breath! Unlike all the heathen who drive cars, eh? Wow, you are special, aint ya? Presumably you don't care about how anyone else lives though, unless it is according to a master plan that works for you in your little corner of the universe.
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
YOU care about the air you breath! Unlike all the heathen who drive cars, eh? Wow, you are special, aint ya? Presumably you don't care about how anyone else lives though, unless it is according to a master plan that works for you in your little corner of the universe.
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
SlimAgainSoon
02-04-09, 02:28 PM
Political act? Yes, it is perceived that way, almost universally, at least here in the South (unless you are on a college campus).
Robert Foster
02-04-09, 04:10 PM
For my own thought on the original question my answer is, my not having ever had a drivers license is political only because i care for the air I breathe. I have no qualms about becoming a socialist because I ride the train or bus to work. I think there should be a use tax based on gross vehicle weight with exceptions for work trucks and a sliding scale for fuel use the less you use the more you save.
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
and bob foster, Tom Jefferson never said that quote, source: monticello.org
Did I put quote marks around a paraphrase? If so I didn’t intend to.
Quote for the first one would be.
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
The quote for the second one is.
"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342
Quote marks included references added.
Still this has nothing to do with bicycles.
Zeppinger, I'm tired of "I Like To *****" also.
and bob foster, Tom Jefferson never said that quote, source: monticello.org
Did I put quote marks around a paraphrase? If so I didn’t intend to.
Quote for the first one would be.
"To take from one because it is thought that his own industry and that of his father's has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association--'the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.'" --Thomas Jefferson: Note in Destutt de Tracy's "Political Economy," 1816. ME 14:466
The quote for the second one is.
"A noiseless course, not meddling with the affairs of others, unattractive of notice, is a mark that society is going on in happiness. If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1802. ME 10:342
Quote marks included references added.
Still this has nothing to do with bicycles.
billew
02-04-09, 10:19 PM
YOU care about the air you breath! Unlike all the heathen who drive cars, eh? Wow, you are special, aint ya? Presumably you don't care about how anyone else lives though, unless it is according to a master plan that works for you in your little corner of the universe.
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
Why bother people who want to live car free? You can stick your car up your ***** for all I care. I don't go out of my way to advocate for causes, I can only do what I have always done, ride my bikes, surf and skate. The gravy part for me is the money I save not feeding the stinkers and insurance, parking and upkeep.
Just another part-time bicyclist afraid he might have to take a bus someday. Feeling threatened by car free people? Why not just stay in A&S and flame everyone over there?
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
Why bother people who want to live car free? You can stick your car up your ***** for all I care. I don't go out of my way to advocate for causes, I can only do what I have always done, ride my bikes, surf and skate. The gravy part for me is the money I save not feeding the stinkers and insurance, parking and upkeep.
Just another part-time bicyclist afraid he might have to take a bus someday. Feeling threatened by car free people? Why not just stay in A&S and flame everyone over there?
I-Like-To-Bike
02-05-09, 04:03 AM
Why bother people who want to live car free? You can stick your car up your ***** for all I care. I don't go out of my way to advocate for causes, I can only do what I have always done, ride my bikes, surf and skate. The gravy part for me is the money I save not feeding the stinkers and insurance, parking and upkeep.
You forgot the part about riding a high horse. You aren't afraid that any notice of your self righteousness will affect your ride are you?
You forgot the part about riding a high horse. You aren't afraid that any notice of your self righteousness will affect your ride are you?
Ekdog
02-06-09, 04:08 AM
YOU care about the air you breath! Unlike all the heathen who drive cars, eh? Wow, you are special, aint ya? Presumably you don't care about how anyone else lives though, unless it is according to a master plan that works for you in your little corner of the universe.
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
My, what a rude fellow you are!
You and Zip going to vote me off the LCF island and keep it safe (from criticism) for spacey, simplistic and/or air headed "political" jabbering?
My, what a rude fellow you are!
I-Like-To-Bike
02-06-09, 05:16 AM
My, what a rude fellow you are!
Yeah, Yeah, same old lame response to justified criticism. Pointing out the sanctimoniousness and shallowness of Smugster's specific comments is just so dang rude.:rolleyes: Sometimes such criticism is considered a "personal insult!" by those who consider themselves above criticism because they believe they are 100% Morally/Politically Correct on all subjects because they ride a bike, or don't like automobiles. 200% better than anybody else if they are blessed with both Politically Correct characteristics.
Yeah, Yeah, same old lame response to justified criticism. Pointing out the sanctimoniousness and shallowness of Smugster's specific comments is just so dang rude.:rolleyes: Sometimes such criticism is considered a "personal insult!" by those who consider themselves above criticism because they believe they are 100% Morally/Politically Correct on all subjects because they ride a bike, or don't like automobiles. 200% better than anybody else if they are blessed with both Politically Correct characteristics.
Roody
02-06-09, 03:37 PM
Like I said in the OP, let's do this without the personal attacks.
dondonaldo
02-06-09, 04:02 PM
Yes and no.
I think that any individual trip has had zero political value. I ride to get somewhere in the most practical manner.
But somehow cumulatively, I've come to think that perhaps bicycling is the most political thing that I do. Being out on the highways for decades on end, having dealt with friends and family about it, my bicycling has become a shout for rational ways of transportation. And having done it for decades, has proven it to be a reasonable form of transportation.
political? not really.
environmental/social statement? yes.
critical mass is one time when the line between just riding and making a statement are blurred.. but i would hardly call that "political." to me, politics means greasing palms, ramming legislation through, that kind of stuff.
It's not any kind of statement at all; it's just transportation.
Transportation is political whether it's being used to make a statement or not. Environmental and Social statements are political. They're inseparable. There are no transportation, environmental or social solutions that don't have a political elemant to them. The absence of political intention does not mean that riding a bicycle in a society built politically, socially and environmentally around the internal combustion engine does not mean the absence of political significance.
I'm not advocating any greater emphasis on the political in my daily riding, but I can't believe that it's not political just because I don't intend it to be. Leading by example may be the best politics we have.
I think that any individual trip has had zero political value. I ride to get somewhere in the most practical manner.
But somehow cumulatively, I've come to think that perhaps bicycling is the most political thing that I do. Being out on the highways for decades on end, having dealt with friends and family about it, my bicycling has become a shout for rational ways of transportation. And having done it for decades, has proven it to be a reasonable form of transportation.
political? not really.
environmental/social statement? yes.
critical mass is one time when the line between just riding and making a statement are blurred.. but i would hardly call that "political." to me, politics means greasing palms, ramming legislation through, that kind of stuff.
It's not any kind of statement at all; it's just transportation.
Transportation is political whether it's being used to make a statement or not. Environmental and Social statements are political. They're inseparable. There are no transportation, environmental or social solutions that don't have a political elemant to them. The absence of political intention does not mean that riding a bicycle in a society built politically, socially and environmentally around the internal combustion engine does not mean the absence of political significance.
I'm not advocating any greater emphasis on the political in my daily riding, but I can't believe that it's not political just because I don't intend it to be. Leading by example may be the best politics we have.
mattm
02-06-09, 04:50 PM
Transportation is political whether it's being used to make a statement or not. Environmental and Social statements are political. They're inseparable. There are no transportation, environmental or social solutions that don't have a political elemant to them. The absence of political intention does not mean that riding a bicycle in a society built politically, socially and environmentally around the internal combustion engine does not mean the absence of political significance.
I'm not advocating any greater emphasis on the political in my daily riding, but I can't believe that it's not political just because I don't intend it to be. Leading by example may be the best politics we have.
i agree, that leading by example is good.
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
I'm not advocating any greater emphasis on the political in my daily riding, but I can't believe that it's not political just because I don't intend it to be. Leading by example may be the best politics we have.
i agree, that leading by example is good.
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
gerv
02-06-09, 05:10 PM
i agree, that leading by example is good.
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
Leading by example is more a moral than a political statement. Perhaps that should be another thread...
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
Leading by example is more a moral than a political statement. Perhaps that should be another thread...
dynodonn
02-06-09, 09:03 PM
My riding a bicycle has some political basis, since 15 to 20 percent of our total oil usage is coming from countries that are either not friendly to the US or not very stable, my goal is to reduce my petroleum footprint by that same amount, and using my bicycle has made a considerable step in that direction. The majority of my reasoning to ride is for health, enjoyment and distributing my money elsewhere other than insurance premiums, fuel, and car payments.
Roody
02-07-09, 01:12 PM
i agree, that leading by example is good.
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
That's one definition of politics. But the word also refers broadly to the coordination of human actions toward a common goal, the sharing of interpersonal power, and the distribution of scarce resources. People talk about office politics and even family politics, for example.
but why the "political" distinction?
i guess i just think that the term "political" is thrown around a lot - what we're really talking about (i think) are environmental/social statements. like i said before, when i hear "politics" i'm thinking about deals made by men in suits behind closed mohagony(sp?) doors.
---
and on the flipside, does anyone think that driving a car is a statement, political or otherwise? i do. and it's not a good one either..
That's one definition of politics. But the word also refers broadly to the coordination of human actions toward a common goal, the sharing of interpersonal power, and the distribution of scarce resources. People talk about office politics and even family politics, for example.