New York vs. the American Way of Life

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

It's understood that the American Way of Life is practiced at least by
90% of the people in America. It's also the way most citizens of the
world perceive America. Urban Sprawl, SUVs and trashing the
environment are all features of this model, while New York represents
some social experiment, progressive if you will, where the quality of
life is better. But you better read on...

On Jul 11, 10:34 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Sounds familiar? Drivers bitching about bikes. Such is the fate of the
little fish in murky waters.

It sounds very familiar Monkey. VERY familiar.
But there is a tick. A flaw. An exaggeration that is so ginormous as
to block the view... there is no way! you want me to believe a story
that starts, once upon a time there was a monkey kayaking in the
everglades... that would, as you say sound as familiar as driving a
bike in Florida being chased by the agents of Light and Power Company.
"Soldier." The other career.
Tim

Well, things have changed. I'm in New York now and I can't help but be
inspired by the awesome power of the river running through my
backyard. See, that's why the Indians were happy before the Europeans
came with their own idea of "civilization." Of course, they polluted
everything and created obstacles everywhere. The river though is not
deep enough to do kayaking or anything that you may call "adventure."
You just sit there, open up your hammock and say, "Nirvana!"

Going out under your own power is not a smart option since you share
the road with drivers who may not see you. They are not evil like in
my hometown, just that there's no space on this winding road. Blame
the engineers, if you will.

But the Buddhist monks found around here are smart. They go into their
retreat and say, "Fuck the world!"

Perhaps that's the way to go. But New York is beautiful is many other
ways. I can still say, "I love NY!" without sounding trivial. They
must be talking about the rest of the country as a weird place. For
example, I saw no people on my travel by bus from Miami to NYC.
"Where's the people?" A young man from Colombia abandoned his search
for Utopia in Orlando and came to NYC looking for people, real people.
He boarded the Greyhound bus and told me that driving two-three hours
to work is not fun. The problem is not everybody can live in NYC.

Many people though still think that Disney is the real world and that
Mickey Mouse is just another character just like the TibetanMonkey.

CORRECTION: Some garbage bags run down the river on occasion,
according to a man no less wise than me. Such is the reality of life
that I care about. But I can not say that "My community is full of
shit" as I used to say in my community. These are signs of trouble,
though. Are the Tibetan monks sending these bags down the river?

But if they did so they would avoid driving two miles to dump the
trash, saving gas in the process, proving that everything is related
and nobody can escape reality. We can only choose to go with the flow
or against the flow. And such is my humble proposal. I mean, my
proposal is that we sometimes must go against the flow and find a
solution.

The question is, "Is the water potable or not?" If it's not some
bottling company is making money by you deciding to buy bottled water
and another for dumping the bottle, all part of a "throw away
society." But in NY they charge you for the container --and then they
buy it back-- so the trash is not lying around.

And that's important if we are talking about quality of life.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
We can only choose to go with the flow
or against the flow.

Some folks decline to participate.
Other choices may exist as well.

But we may be able to tell that the ones that sit on their ass are
wrong. Didn't we agree to that before?

And the river just forces you to take a decision. The wise man takes
the right decision judging the power of the river and your own
strength. Anyone can go downriver but not everyone braves the river.

But you may choose to go knee deep and feel the fresh water that you
assume is clear. Of course, never assume anything. Just have the water
tested and see if it rained up the river. Should you take your bottled
water to the river? Not if you can bring your own bottle.

Leave nothing but your footprints.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
And such is my humble proposal. I mean, my
proposal is that we sometimes must go against the flow and find a
solution.

The ancients may have proposed
that it is not so much what one does
but how one does what one does.
It's possible to sail against the wind.
It's possible to swim upstream.
Many ways exist.
Some are better than others.
Some end in one's demise.
Some end in a flourish.
Some folks enjoy exercise.
Some in futility.

Wisdom is not futility. Exercise is not wasting your time. The perfect
balance is like yin-yang. Let the energy flow, let the river flow.
Just keep the river clean.

Actually you may leave banana peels behind but not bottles and cans.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Wisdom is not futility. Exercise is not wasting your time. The perfect
balance is like yin-yang. Let the energy flow, let the river flow.
Just keep the river clean.

Any philosophy that seeks to improve the human condition is doomed
right from the starting gate. Learn the 4 F's, and if you choose to
fight the urges so that you can sleep better at night, good for you
(and then you die).

Any philosophy seeking to improve the human condition is a step in the
right direction.

Wrong.
Any philosophy that divides anything
into good and bad or right and wrong
is wrong.

Sorry, you are one that's wrong. It can easily be demonstrated that a
"throw away society" is wrong, particularly when the trash stays by
the banks of a river, lakes and oceans.

We learn by trial and error. A life in a clean
environment is worth living, no matter what's the outcome.

So, like, it's okay to kill small animals
as long as you make it a clean kill.

Wrong inference. You may choose to kill or not to kill. That's a moral
decision just as riding a bike or driving a truck.

You ignore
the outcome, just live.

Right.
Now you may be on
two somethings.

I explore all paths until I hit the right one, then it's my way or the
highway.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:21:12 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:05:04 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Wisdom is not futility. Exercise is not wasting your time. The perfect
balance is like yin-yang. Let the energy flow, let the river flow.
Just keep the river clean.

Any philosophy that seeks to improve the human condition is doomed
right from the starting gate. Learn the 4 F's, and if you choose to
fight the urges so that you can sleep better at night, good for you
(and then you die).

Any philosophy seeking to improve the human condition is a step in the
right direction.

Wrong.
Any philosophy that divides anything
into good and bad or right and wrong
is wrong.

Sorry, you are one that's wrong. It can easily be demonstrated that a
"throw away society" is wrong, particularly when the trash stays by
the banks of a river, lakes and oceans.

I like all the lip service given to the sins of the throw away life
style... until the orator tries to obtain devices that can be repaired
and is charged their significantly higher costs.
Example: In 1970, in riverside, California, it was cheaper to purchase
a new 1/2 H.P electric motor then it was to repair one due primarily
to the labor costs.
So, in that case at least, to live in a non-throw away society one
would need to reduce the salary of the workers.

A cost analysis of living in a throwaway society is misleading. I
believe it's cheaper to throw away the can than to recycle one. But is
that moral? And what happens when all those cans and botttles end up
in our rivers and scenic places? And... ARE WE TRASHING FUTURE
GENERATIONS?

You live in a society that has become so affluent that they cannot be
bothered to recycle. In contrast in most developing countries
recycling is a normal practice.
And, I might add, in a society where, in spite of the oft mentioned
subject, there is little, if any interest, in the environment. To
paraphrase the old saw about the weather everyone talks about it but
no one does anything about it.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

We learn by trial and error. A life in a clean
environment is worth living, no matter what's the outcome.

So, like, it's okay to kill small animals
as long as you make it a clean kill.

Wrong inference. You may choose to kill or not to kill. That's a moral
decision just as riding a bike or driving a truck.

Is it? You don't eat hamburgers?

Yes, I do but I can try to minimize it. I still drive though I feel
that I should minimize it.

If you eat hamburgers the you have made the decision to kill simply to
satisfy your taste buds.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

You ignore
the outcome, just live.

Right.
Now you may be on
two somethings.

I explore all paths until I hit the right one, then it's my way or the
highway.

From a previous post I thought you couldn't find the highway there in

Not so. I found the highway and I found a scenic place after leaving
the tunnel, spotless clean and it had parallel trails to the road. The
view over the city was truly awesome.
I thought I had died and come back to find my own Heaven, which is, of
course, full of trails and people. Now in the boondocks there's no
people or trails, but I have a clean river to enjoy. I'm just
wondering why they don't take advantage of the forests and make
trails, avoiding a road which is plain dangerous, and making room for
people who are tired of struggling with cars. My theme here is not
bikes, not kayaks, but hiking.
Of course, you must adapt to the environment or die, to paraphrase
Darwin. I'm adapting but I haven't been out of the cage today, which
requires a car. Nobody says that living in the boondocks is the
solution.

Cheers,
John B.

Sorry, you seem to be a radical. Eating some meat doesn't make me the
worst predator around. I do it perhaps because I haven't found a good
Hindu catering service. Perhaps that's quite possible in NYC.

Now, mixing up affluence with trashing the environment is a big
mistake. Go to Norway and check it out. They recycle and you don't
find any littering around. Again, they are #1 in standard of living in
the world.

You lose the game. You must practice prevention.

A cost analysis of living in a throwaway society is misleading. I
believe it's cheaper to throw away the can than to recycle one.

I've heard it costs half as much
to recyle an aluminum can
than to make a new one out of dirt.

But is that moral?

Morality is cultural.
There's a story about an old farmer
who had a horse that ran away.
Perhaps you are familiar with it.
http://vision-nary.com/weblogs/index.php/taoist_parable
http://progressivebuddhism.blogspot.com/2009/04/few-buddhist-parables...

And what happens when all those cans and botttles end up
in our rivers and scenic places?

Then that will be the scene.

And... ARE WE TRASHING FUTURE GENERATIONS?

You are creating jobs for them.

I'm just
wondering why they don't take advantage of the forests and make
trails, avoiding a road which is plain dangerous, and making room for
people who are tired of struggling with cars. My theme here is not
bikes, not kayaks, but hiking.

Perhaps you will become involved
in the making of trails in that area.
It could be your life's work.
Perhaps in that you would find satisfaction.
Zz says a path is made by walking it.

Of course, you must adapt to the environment or die, to paraphrase
Darwin. I'm adapting but I haven't been out of the cage today, which
requires a car. Nobody says that living in the boondocks is the
solution.

Living in the boondocks can be a solution.
You, however, appear to have problems
for which, aside from trail-making, are not
to be found in the boondocks.
Your problems are city problems.
Your problems are road problems.
The boondocks can be a solution for that.
There there is no city, thus no city problems.
The roads are few, thus fewer road problems.
Maybe you like problems.
So you live in a city, where there are city problems.
You insist on finding roads where road problems are.
What would you do if there were no problems?
Would you be satisfied
or go looking for a problem
in order to try and solve it?
Here in the boondocks there is no problem.
You have gone far in order to get here.
Yet you are not satisfied.
Perhaps satisfaction is beyond
your ability to attain, for a one single day
- at a time.

"According to Taoism, the true significance of events can never be
understood as they are occurring, for in every event there are
elements of both good and bad. Furthermore, each event has no specific
beginning or end and may influence future events for years or even
centuries to come. An excellent example of the Taoist view of life is
found in the following parable of the Taoist farmer."

Any wisdom --including my own-- must be examined and applied in the
right context. Let's assume this scenario:

"I go walking out of my cage and get run over... which is both good
and bad."

It's kind of ridiculous, isn't it? How about making paths and trails
for pedestrians to walk in? This is often forgotten in America and we
are looking for solutions.

"PREVENTION IS THE BEST MEDICINE" is also part of some ancient wisdom
as well as my own. Then the Wise Man does the things that bring him a
long happy life. I beat Obamacare and most Western medicine to be sure.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 07:45:07 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 18:21:12 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 08:05:04 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Wisdom is not futility. Exercise is not wasting your time. The perfect
balance is like yin-yang. Let the energy flow, let the river flow.
Just keep the river clean.

Any philosophy that seeks to improve the human condition is doomed
right from the starting gate. Learn the 4 F's, and if you choose to
fight the urges so that you can sleep better at night, good for you
(and then you die).

Any philosophy seeking to improve the human condition is a step in the
right direction.

Wrong.
Any philosophy that divides anything
into good and bad or right and wrong
is wrong.

Sorry, you are one that's wrong. It can easily be demonstrated that a
"throw away society" is wrong, particularly when the trash stays by
the banks of a river, lakes and oceans.

I like all the lip service given to the sins of the throw away life
style... until the orator tries to obtain devices that can be repaired
and is charged their significantly higher costs.
Example: In 1970, in riverside, California, it was cheaper to purchase
a new 1/2 H.P electric motor then it was to repair one due primarily
to the labor costs.
So, in that case at least, to live in a non-throw away society one
would need to reduce the salary of the workers.

A cost analysis of living in a throwaway society is misleading. I
believe it's cheaper to throw away the can than to recycle one. But is
that moral? And what happens when all those cans and botttles end up
in our rivers and scenic places? And... ARE WE TRASHING FUTURE
GENERATIONS?

You live in a society that has become so affluent that they cannot be
bothered to recycle. In contrast in most developing countries
recycling is a normal practice.
And, I might add, in a society where, in spite of the oft mentioned
subject, there is little, if any interest, in the environment. To
paraphrase the old saw about the weather everyone talks about it but
no one does anything about it.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

We learn by trial and error. A life in a clean
environment is worth living, no matter what's the outcome.

So, like, it's okay to kill small animals
as long as you make it a clean kill.

Wrong inference. You may choose to kill or not to kill. That's a moral
decision just as riding a bike or driving a truck.

Is it? You don't eat hamburgers?

Yes, I do but I can try to minimize it. I still drive though I feel
that I should minimize it.

If you eat hamburgers the you have made the decision to kill simply to
satisfy your taste buds.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

You ignore
the outcome, just live.

Right.
Now you may be on
two somethings.

I explore all paths until I hit the right one, then it's my way or the
highway.

From a previous post I thought you couldn't find the highway there in

Not so. I found the highway and I found a scenic place after leaving
the tunnel, spotless clean and it had parallel trails to the road. The
view over the city was truly awesome.
I thought I had died and come back to find my own Heaven, which is, of
course, full of trails and people. Now in the boondocks there's no
people or trails, but I have a clean river to enjoy. I'm just
wondering why they don't take advantage of the forests and make
trails, avoiding a road which is plain dangerous, and making room for
people who are tired of struggling with cars. My theme here is not
bikes, not kayaks, but hiking.
Of course, you must adapt to the environment or die, to paraphrase
Darwin. I'm adapting but I haven't been out of the cage today, which
requires a car. Nobody says that living in the boondocks is the
solution.

Cheers,
John B.

Sorry, you seem to be a radical. Eating some meat doesn't make me the
worst predator around. I do it perhaps because I haven't found a good
Hindu catering service. Perhaps that's quite possible in NYC.

You seem to make a habit of being wrong. No, not a radical, just
pointing out that when you post a statement like>> >> >Wrong inference. You may choose to kill or not to kill. That's a moral

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
decision just as riding a bike or driving a truck.

discussing morality and then admit that you condone killing you are
illustrating the ambiguity of your posts.

Let's say I'm a pragmatic man willing to get better in order that we
all get better. I'm not even promising to become vegetarian at this
point, but I'm willing to pedal and paddle for the environment, way
better than our leaders.

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Now, mixing up affluence with trashing the environment is a big
mistake. Go to Norway and check it out. They recycle and you don't
find any littering around. Again, they are #1 in standard of living in
the world.

As I said, you live in a society that gives lip service to the
environment but in fact does nothing about it.

Actually I promise to reduce my footprint and cut down the waste. It
hurts that extra lighting is left on all night at the beach path for
no good reason. Enough reason to stay away from it and possibly
relocate to a state that doesn't pollute for the hell of it.

But as for Norway, they are not some sort of environmental saints.
they have some of the harshest laws concerning the environment in the
world. In essence that all pollution is illegal except what is
specifically permitted by the law.

Yeah sure. Provide proof.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Your framing as such, i.e. "right context"
suggests that you missed the point entirely.

Wow. New guy just hit Monkey. Exactly being.

The so-called, "right context" today
may appear to be a "wrong context" tomorrow,
which, next month or next year, may appear,
once again, to have been "right"
but, years later, "wrong" once more.

But that is not what is happening is it? Wisdom is the bomb. 1930s.
Dirty 30s. The result of extreme carbon emissions due to the
industrial revolution and the war it fueled. What did we learn?
Nothing. We didn't know anything about it then. 70s. Acid rain during
the bio-chemical industry revolution. What did we learn? A two point
pattern but... then the predictions came. Global Warming. But did we
trust? No. So now here we are again only this time the environment is
not the only complicating factor.
So there we were, making asses of ourselves to raise the alarm to say
WTF! Why do we allow these Jews to continue?

Wait, is Global Warming a Jewish plot? Are they financing Al Gore and
every responsible citizen raising his voice? Where's my check anyway?

Well, this is reality check. You may blame the Jews for the next war
with Iran but not this one. This time around we have the enemy among
us and it's a pig who doesn't respect the environnment.

Anyway, I support Mayor Bloomberg's policies. I thought Jews lived in
their own world, but he worries about quality of life for all. Welcome
to the Revolution.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Sitting on their ass is not only bad for monks, but for anyone who
wants to live longer and --why not-- those who want to be smarter.
In other words, my wisdom is proven right one more time...
"Sitting too long can kill you"
http://www.emaxhealth.com/11306/sitting-too-long-can-kill-you
***
Then who's killing us with sedentary life? I wonder.

the seekers of the sun under the trees.

In line with my practical wisdom you may want to grab a woman before
you go into the boondocks. There's no other thing to do, no way to
burn the calories, then a woman is necessary. If you live near NYC,
you may want to place an ad in Craigslist. "Woman sought to fight
boredom in the boondocks." Of course, this is not something the monks
will tell you. They don't need what a monkey needs. The monkey can not
be bored. Walking on the edge of the road is not recommended and
trails are nonexistent. That's one good reason I do not recommend
living in the boondocks.

If you do you may want to practice the motto: "EAT, PHUCK & BE MERRY."
But you must elevate recreational sex to Tantric heights. The longer
the better. Recreational drinking may be OK though.

But that's only my humble opinion.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Jul 18, 9:53 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Sitting on their ass is not only bad for monks, but for anyone who
wants to live longer and --why not-- those who want to be smarter.
In other words, my wisdom is proven right one more time...
"Sitting too long can kill you"
http://www.emaxhealth.com/11306/sitting-too-long-can-kill-you
***
Then who's killing us with sedentary life? I wonder.

the seekers of the sun under the trees.

Some are happy, some of us are unhappy. But I agree with those who sit
under the trees when taking a necessary pause in a long journey.
Effort and rest are like yin and yang.

Taken for a local magazine:

KIDS GET SMARTER BY DOING A SIMPLE THING: MOVE

There's absolutely no doubt that kids need exercise, and that most
kids aren't getting enough. Less than one-third of kids aged 6 to 17
get at least 20 of daily exercise in one form or another. This is
TRAGIC, considering the multitude of short --and long-term health
benefits your child can gain from a regular exercise regimen.

First, it's imperative to limit the amount of time your child spends
playing computer and board games, and to replace some of these
sedentary activities with exercise. Hiking, bike riding, swimming,
brisk walking and walking are all great options.

Think of it this way: by taking the time to get your kids interested
in exercise now, you are giving them a gift that will keep them
healthy and happy for the rest of their lives.

***

There's sage out there who says the same thing: the TibetanMonkey. But
they are keeping the kids as well as the adults in the cage. Sad life
for a monkey that wants to move and roam free.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Fri, 20 Jul 2012 09:25:28 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
On Jul 18, 9:53 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Sitting on their ass is not only bad for monks, but for anyone who
wants to live longer and --why not-- those who want to be smarter.
In other words, my wisdom is proven right one more time...
"Sitting too long can kill you"
http://www.emaxhealth.com/11306/sitting-too-long-can-kill-you
***
Then who's killing us with sedentary life? I wonder.

the seekers of the sun under the trees.

Some are happy, some of us are unhappy. But I agree with those who sit
under the trees when taking a necessary pause in a long journey.
Effort and rest are like yin and yang.

KIDS GET SMARTER BY DOING A SIMPLE THING: MOVE
There's absolutely no doubt that kids need exercise, and that most
kids aren't getting enough. Less than one-third of kids aged 6 to 17
get at least 20 of daily exercise in one form or another. This is
TRAGIC, considering the multitude of short --and long-term health
benefits your child can gain from a regular exercise regimen.
First, it's imperative to limit the amount of time your child spends
playing computer and board games, and to replace some of these
sedentary activities with exercise. Hiking, bike riding, swimming,
brisk walking and walking are all great options.
Think of it this way: by taking the time to get your kids interested
in exercise now, you are giving them a gift that will keep them
healthy and happy for the rest of their lives.
***
There's sage out there who says the same thing: the TibetanMonkey. But
they are keeping the kids as well as the adults in the cage. Sad life
for a monkey that wants to move and roam free.

And 35.7% of the adult U.S. population is obese while only about 17%
of the child - adolescent (2 - 19 years) is. Apparently the kids are
either being starved by their parents or are getting a certain amount
of exercise.

It's pretty obvious the obesity sets in as you grow older. My next
door neighbor in the boondocks and his son are classical examples.
He's an obese 52 year couch potato from the city. The whole day
watching movies. Forget the river or anything that sounds like nature
right in the backyard. And "like father like son." But his teenager
son, who spends countless hours --sometimes until the wee hours--
playing games on the computer, is lean. I didn't even show them the
article in case they found it "threatening."

They don't let the kid walk on the road because it's "too dangerous,"
an evaluation I agree with. Forget about riding a bike. You are
playing "Russian Roulette" on a narrow winding road, where the top
speed ranges from 35 to 55mph. This speed difference is set up, I
think, to be able to catch distracted drivers speeding. I just play it
safe and always go 35 mph.

A guy we know got a $150 ticket for speeding and that seems to be fair
game for a town strapped for cash. At any rate going 55mph is always
crazy and reckless around these roads.

In other words, the monkey is in the cage. And they are B-O-R-E-D.
Teenagers are dying to be in NYC, I gather. NOTHING TO DO IN THE
BOONDOCKS, except sex and alcohol perhaps. Well, unless you like
movies or you are into prayers like the monks.

On Jul 20, 9:34 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

You don't have to go to the "boondocks" to be alone. You can live
very well like a hermit in the concrete jungle.

True, and that's the saddest solitude. At least you should have NATURE
in the boondocks. But if you don't take advantage of it, you may as
well live in the concrete jungle, where at least you enjoy public
transportation.

Yes, convenience of public transportation, electricity, light, water,
sewage system, and news of what's happening around the world.

The point I'm trying to make is that NYC is a type of city where you
can "roam free," having a place to walk and to a lesser degree ride a
bike. Most American cities are a dessert and so is the boondocks when
you don't have a place to walk. And that's sad, very sad.

The news from around the world are sad too. ;)

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

with near autism; ultimately overcomeable, but what a climb!). if
you learned something, then you may have similar challenges. that's
unfortunate, but thanks.
-k

Hahaha... nice try. But all I learned from you is how to get around
the monkeys and get to the talent... like I said, it has been ages
since I posted to a.p.t but it seems you still have things to learn
from me about mastery and enlightenment since you are here and I am
not there.
Tim

agree.  only teacher worth a damn is your own good taste.  Everyone
else is at best a fellow traveler.
btw - here vs. there:  appears we're in an a.b.s.f.g/a.p.t/a.z
crosspost. my "here" is a.p.t.
-k

We walked and walked today. Many miles, up and down. We got there.
Then we had pizza by the lake. We lied down and rested. And we finally
caught a ride on the way back. He was a nice fellow who offered his
cramped seat, and he was our human contact today. Many people fat out
there, perhaps because driving is mandatory.
And we are home. It was a gorgeous day well lived. How about that?

marvelous :-)
sounds like a typical day.  reason one doesn't hear many stories like that,
is once life levels out, there's less need to tell folks about it, but very
good to hear.

Well, "seven days without exercise makes one weak," and I do feel
strong today. You may feel inspired by me or you may feel inspired by
Turkey. They are implementing changes to make people fit and
healthy...

"With more and more Turks in treatment for obesity-triggered diseases
such as hypertension and diabetes, the government has started pushing
health and dietary tactics, along with the television and newspaper
ads, to urge Turks to eat less and work to lose weight.

Over the summer, family doctors will distribute pedometers, so people
can record their walking distance, and monitor the progress of their
overweight patients."

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-fights-back-ballooning-weight-gain-164405565.html

Such things never happen in America. Actually we are not planing to
repeat those walks on the edge of the road. We found a skunk dead by
the road and whatever happens to a skunk can happen to you. But we are
coming to NYC soon and there's hope. I read that's the healthiest
place in America because they are doing like the Turks. You can make
people strong and smart by implementing strong and smart policies.
Weak policies make weak people.

You just say you heard it from the TibetanMonkey.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Le 23/07/2012 01:59, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher a

Le 23/07/2012 00:51, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Jul 22, 4:35 pm, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Philosopher"

On Jul 22, 12:32 am, "TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser
Philosopher"

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
Over the summer, family doctors will distribute pedometers, so
people can record their walking distance, and monitor the
progress of their overweight patients."

http://news.yahoo.com/turkey-fights-back-ballooning-weight-gain-16440...
"A study published in June by the London School of Hygiene and
Tropical Medicine, and based on 2005 figures, showed that 74
percent of the North American population was overweight, with
56 percent in Europe, 29 percent in Africa and 24 percent in
Asia."
"The average (weight) is increasing everywhere. Everybody is
getting fatter, even the thin people are getting fatter,"
co-author Ian Roberts told AFP at the time.
But there is hope.
"Obesity is a preventable disease. It's enough to slim down to
extend your life expectancy and quality of life," Yavuz said.
So it turns out that America is #1, Europe #2 and Africa and
Asia down the line. Of course, this is a questionable position
at the top but it goes to show we are losing the battle of the
bulges. But there's hope.
***
Let me tell you I have been to Turkey and they are light
wieghts and look good compared to the "trunks" on the "women"
in US public housing. I'm talking BIG butts, legs and arms, a
240 shorty would be small compared to these buffarillas. I have
seen them as big as 500/700lbs, no problem, and they are always
looking for (and find) a free grezzy meal). I'm talking BIG!!!
There ain't no hunger problems in US public housing!!
But I don't know why he stops at "public housing." Any church
is full of them. Most drivers are like that. Men too. The
statistics show 3 out of 4 are fat. And many people are unfit
without being obese. It's in their genes as well.

Bollocks, the descendants of original N.American imigrants are
descended from the fittest stock. Grain is used to fatten beast
for the market, same with people..

This is something the people of NYC don't have to live with but
it's not much of a choice anywhere else. If you don't walk or
ride a bike, chances are you'll be fat. Going to the gym is not
an option. It ain't fun. The monkey needs to roam free.

Inability to excercise is an effect of being congestedt through
wheat. One cannot break the chain until one first stops eating
wheat. Milk is another major contributer due to the casein
content, it's glue. When one mixes cellulose and casein one gets
hardboard, any wonder why people have difficulty moving? Fat
itself is a minor problem and is easily shifted in a healthy
individual, yet there are people that honestly can't move to
burn the fat.

Milk and wheat were indeed part of the new diet that came along
the sedentary life. But sedentary is a relative term and they
didn't enjoy the "comforts of sedentary life" such as the car and
the TV. We still moved around until the era of the automobile.
Maybe we should remove the voting right from obese people. Women
emancipation came together with the bicycle so maybe we can
explore that connection.

Walking and climbing is still best for fat burning. Cycling is
performed sitting down, after all..

You kind of make sense but you take the advantage of the terrain,
"It is said that you have only truly been to a place, if you’ve done
so on foot. Germany’s charming and diverse landscapes get you in the
mood for more. The best conditions for a hiking adventure across the
entire country can be found here with nearly 200,000 kilometres of
marked hiking trails."
http://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g187275-c105588/Germany:Long.Distan...
Those numbers are astronomical for a small country like Germany
where nature has already been tamed. You can be walking your entire
life and never run out of trails. I've seen some promising places
around here but there's no marking whatsoever. Maybe you are
walking a dirt road where someone will shoot at you or end up in
jail for trespassing. Next time I'm taking my machete and spray
because you must be ready for whatever. There are some hikes in the
area just that everything requires a car. Wait, public
transportation is cheaper than first reported. Where there's a
will, there's a way. This is a test of determination in the face of
adversity. Nothing is impossible.
Riding a bike in Miami is not impossible either. But kayaking is the
way to go. Actually the only way to go if you don't want to find
yourself fighting traffic and stupid design. People say this is a
dead town in winter. No people! Maybe I can do cross-country
skying. Great sport, I hear.

That's what's strange about the Land of the Free. Hardly any hiking
trails outside public lands.
There are paths with swing gates (so that livestock may not cross)
across private land everywhere in England, ditto most anywhere in
Europe.

The problem is hiking is free and nothing is free in the Land of the
Free. You may be shot at out there.

North East is pedestrian friendly (especially Boston).  Bicycling's a bit
tougher because of narrow, twisty roads.  Around here, cyclists come out in
packs after work, but are pretty scarce the rest of the day.  Walkers,
joggers, runners are anytime.
-k

Boston should be pretty interesting. San Francisco, the Pacific
northwest and Colorado too.

States where the car is mandatory score very low in my quality of life
scale. We should put together this scale based on the following
points:

1- Walking/hiking,

2- Biking (suburban areas with bike lanes),

3- Public transportation,

4- Littering/recycling,

5- Green areas, etc.

Other areas fall within the category of "My community is full of
crap."

[His Highness the TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

Anyway, there is some rationality to irrational behavior in evolved systems.  The energy consuming behavior can function as a secondary sexual attribute indicating status sufficient to engage in such behavior.  If it leads to reproduction the strategy worked.  If not it will be selected against.

Are you trying to say the SUV is part of a sexual strategy to get
mates? (alpha male gorilla)

And how the females respond in kind? Red vulva?

It kind of make sense. And what's the role of the loud horn? Big howl?

I must confess that I'm not part of that mating game because I look
good on my bike and my gf is the best.


-----------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

"TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher"

I advocated restricting them to professionals
that could demonstrate bona-fide NEED for the
gas-hogs YEARS ago.

Good plan Comrade....

   Sorry, but shitty gas mileage has become
   a national security issue. Doesn't matter
   if it 'seems commie' or 'seems fascist',
   something NEEDS to be done.
   'Market forces' presume a SANE consumer ...
   but when it come to things like cars and
   trucks they're huge STATUS SYMBOLS and/or
   substitutes for really teenie weenies.
   Many consumers will act IRRATIONALLY when
   it comes to choosing a vehicle, even IF
   it breaks the bank and US national security.
   The guy on TV sez you're not a REAL Man if
   you don't have a jacked-up crew-cab 4x4 with
   a V-10 turbo-hemi dontchaknow .....
   So, prove you NEED a mega-SUV/truck or you
   shouldn't HAVE one, period. Some people do
   need 'em ... construction contractors,
   mini-bus operators, farmers/ranchers ...
   but not Suzy Suburb, soccer mom. Let her
   buy a station-wagon instead.
   Now if some situation ever arises where Suzy
   really truely NEEDS a big SUV ... let her RENT
   one for the day. Easily done and not too costly.
   Beats trying to pay off that $42,000 SUV and
   the weekly gas bill ....

The truth and nothing but the truth. Actually the neighbor in question
in the original post receives food stamps and it's scratching a living
but he got a big mother fucker truck anyway.

   Dumb of him. But, in the theme here, I wouldn't
   be terribly upset if he had a $300k sailboat
   because that's not making us the butt-boys of
   every petty dictator and potentate around the
   world who's sitting on an oil dome.

That's right. I do NOT care that people have a fancy toy so long as
they don't threaten the environment and others. The sailboat is the
perfect example. It's an art form, poetry on the move, even smart to
sail. That's probably most people in Miami stay away from them and get
a motorboat. You see them lining up at the marina: SUV and motorboat
in tow. The whole Biscayne bay is swimming in trash and you can't even
ride a paddle boat on weekends.

That's what you get with "freedom." I call it "Hialeah by the
sea." (Hialeah refers to the Cuban ghetto.)

   The sailboat would not be a national-security issue
   and thus I wouldn't want to say he couldn't buy one.
   Now if HHS or whomever's giving him food stamps and/or
   child-welfare packages or whatever complains about the
   sailboat ... well, it SHOULD be a factor in deciding
   how much, if any, he gets in 'welfare'. People with
   a big bank balance or expensive easily-disposable
   material assets should NOT be on the public dole.

True, but nowadays a truck is considered "normal." The gas it sucks is
irrelevant for Welfare purposes.

   'Welfare' is intended to keep people ALIVE and out
   of absolute squalor ... NOT to let them maintain the
   (excessive) lifestyle they'd become used to. "I made
   $250k a year before the recession" does NOT mean the
   tax payers oughtta keep his $250k lifestyle afloat.
   Let him move to a small, cheap house/apt/mobile and
   SELL the sailboat and gas-hawg SUV.

Exactly. My son in law is doing the same thing. Big SUV while
scratching a living. Was receiving food stamps, but maybe not now. A
real estate agent, under 40 years old, obese and diabetic. I gave him
a bike but I'm sure he's not taking advantage of it in any significant
way.

In fact he's the kind of guy that would be liberated from the SUV
tyranny. He cited "safety" and having been necessary in Puerto Rico,
but he now lives in the urban jungle of Miami.

   If he's keen on 'safety' he'd relocate well
   away from Miami  :-)

Well, in Miami it's a cultural thing. There are two types of people in
Miami: Those with SUVs and those without SUVs, and they are probably
outnumbered by the SUV crowd.

I think no city has more SUVs percapita even though it's the poorest
city in the nation. By contrast you don't see that many SUVs in NY.
Why? Very simple: It's a blue state.

   NYC or NY state ? No damned ROOM for 'em in
   the city.

I mean NY state. But you could argue they are the worst choice for
these narrow winding roads. You still don't see nearly as many as in
Florida though. If you want to see the longest caravan of SUVs in the
world, go the Florida Keys. Not in Key West though, a little haven
that happens to be a blue town...

But that's only my humble opinion.

   Dunno if 'blue-ness' is the main issue.
   'Blues' will blow money on DIFFERENT stuff
   than 'Reds' ... but if it's not turning the
   USA into somebodys slave, not deciding who
   we're going to war with, that's their business.
   "National security" is the most legit reason to
   limit the purchases of crap-mileage vehicles.

One good step is for NYC to ban SUVs. Let Bloomberg make up for his
mistake. Then communities can declare SUVs "Vehicle Non Grato." "Not
in my backyard" is a good motto. Maybe they should concentrate on one
point of the nation to avoid conflict with civilization. Maybe they
should go to Texas.

At the same time NEVs (neighborhood electric vehicles), scooters and
bicycles would be promoted. The landscape would be similar to Key
West, where people is actually having a lot of freedom "out of the
cage," be it on NEVs, bicycle or scooter. Of course, their speed
limits conduce to this "peace and stability." The occasional SUV is
still around but they are mostly controlled and well behaved.

And happily ever after.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

(I may have given up my dream of riding a bike in America, but
walking... walking is the ultimate necessity of the human being.
Something we did for millions of years once we became bipedal. No
more, now we get on the car and go. Communities are made without
sidewalks, distances are long and barricades are erected. Such I think
while I sit in the boondocks with no particular place to go. No trails
or nothing.)

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:28:45 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:06:40 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:55:53 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

I'm arguing this with my couch potato neighbor who himself owns an
SUV, and I, a Beach Cruiser Philosopher, say that SUVs are a piece
of junk that has no place in a civilized society. The statistics
show that an SUV is something like 16 times more dangerous than a
car and that amounts to having a Licence to Kill. Mind you, I'm
talking about Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, not the smallish type
like Jeep Liberty or Land Rover. I know we are in the Land of the
Free, but nothing is free and they should be regulated.
Are you with me or against me?
NOTE: This is the kind of crap we discuss while stuck in the
boondocks. It started while discussing a new regulation in NYC,
trying to minimize the size of the cups where sodas are served. I'm
all for regulations where they discourage bad behavior and NY is one
of 11 states to require a deposit on bottles and cans.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

Some people need big vehicles for their work, or whatever other
important things.  Some need big vans or SUV's (things like Chevy
Suburbans/etc.) to carry all of their family.  The alternative might
be to get multiple cars of course... But that probably would actually
use more of Gaia's resources, seems to me.
An FBI background check could be done for those who want to buy a
larger vehicle to see if their petition for a permit is reasonable.
Or, we could simply go for small vehicles.  I like the old Citroen
2CV and the Volkswagen Rabbit diesel.  Both very high mileage, and
the Citroen could be configured as a truck of sorts..
If somebody had a large family, they'd just have to buy 2 or 3 of
them, and train the kids to illegally drive maybe...

Romney's solution to that would be to put some of the kids on the roof,
in a carrier.
Obama's solution would be to eat the excess kids that are hurting the
planet.

My solutions would be to make communities safe for kids to ride bikes
once again.
Is anyone promising that, or do they have to move to an infamous gated
community?

Once we have fully automated cars, then I should imagine people could
ride bikes among the cars and trucks safely (nothing is 100%)...
Might end up, automated systems at some point are *required* in some
communities to be used where kids/people ride bikes/etc.  Eventually,
everywhere, except some places where people can drive their cars for fun,
etc... (with more accidents, deaths..)
Won't be that long... maybe even by individual peoples' time..
--
Bobby

In the meantime we need SPEED CAMERAS to catch the worst predatory
drivers in our communities.

What we need is for you to get out of the way...

I'm already out of the way. I'm not even walking on that road. I know
pedestrians are endangered species in America.


-----------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 06:19:09 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Sun, 29 Jul 2012 05:28:45 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 08:06:40 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:55:53 -0700, TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser

I'm arguing this with my couch potato neighbor who himself owns an
SUV, and I, a Beach Cruiser Philosopher, say that SUVs are a piece
of junk that has no place in a civilized society. The statistics
show that an SUV is something like 16 times more dangerous than a
car and that amounts to having a Licence to Kill. Mind you, I'm
talking about Supersized Unnecessary Vehicle, not the smallish type
like Jeep Liberty or Land Rover. I know we are in the Land of the
Free, but nothing is free and they should be regulated.
Are you with me or against me?
NOTE: This is the kind of crap we discuss while stuck in the
boondocks. It started while discussing a new regulation in NYC,
trying to minimize the size of the cups where sodas are served. I'm
all for regulations where they discourage bad behavior and NY is one
of 11 states to require a deposit on bottles and cans.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

Some people need big vehicles for their work, or whatever other
important things.  Some need big vans or SUV's (things like Chevy
Suburbans/etc.) to carry all of their family.  The alternative might
be to get multiple cars of course... But that probably would actually
use more of Gaia's resources, seems to me.
An FBI background check could be done for those who want to buy a
larger vehicle to see if their petition for a permit is reasonable.
Or, we could simply go for small vehicles.  I like the old Citroen
2CV and the Volkswagen Rabbit diesel.  Both very high mileage, and
the Citroen could be configured as a truck of sorts..
If somebody had a large family, they'd just have to buy 2 or 3 of
them, and train the kids to illegally drive maybe...

Romney's solution to that would be to put some of the kids on the roof,
in a carrier.
Obama's solution would be to eat the excess kids that are hurting the
planet.

My solutions would be to make communities safe for kids to ride bikes
once again.
Is anyone promising that, or do they have to move to an infamous gated
community?

Once we have fully automated cars, then I should imagine people could
ride bikes among the cars and trucks safely (nothing is 100%)...
Might end up, automated systems at some point are *required* in some
communities to be used where kids/people ride bikes/etc.  Eventually,
everywhere, except some places where people can drive their cars for fun,
etc... (with more accidents, deaths..)
Won't be that long... maybe even by individual peoples' time..
--
Bobby

In the meantime we need SPEED CAMERAS to catch the worst predatory
drivers in our communities.

What we need is for you to get out of the way...

I'm already out of the way. I'm not even walking on that road. I know
pedestrians are endangered species in America.

Only a moron would walk on the road.  As long as you stay on the
sidewalk or off in the grass you're pretty safe from cars.

Morons, wives and children all walk here on the road. There's no other
way.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

What were the engineers thinking about when they built America around
the automobile?

Was America built, or did it grow?

Why America grew one way and Germany another?
In other words, why one grew smart and the other one not? Perhaps
because they failed one time and grew out of the ashes? Or why Hong
Kong grew around the scooter and not the automobile? Can we blame real
estate for the sprawl in America? London put a stop to growth in the
30's and that was a smart decision taken when we were really stupid.
Was it the politicians?
Perhaps we can name some names and be satisfied we found the guilty
party. At least we should be able to chart a better future, right?

I doubt engineers had a whole lot of say.  They are not usually the
decision makers.

They can certainly refuse to follow stupid orders. ;)

We can not possibly blame the pedestrians and cyclists, right?

Nope.  Who can you blame?  Everyone does what they think is best for
them and theirs.  It's not a holistic approach.
--
JS.

It's a profiteering approach, that's all it is.

Blame Henry Ford and yourself, the American Public. Henry built a car
that was cheap enough for Mr. Average Man to buy and Mr. Average
immediately began to clamor for better roads to drive his new Ford on.
Cheers,
John B.

The American public could not have been that dumb. It needed to kill
the trolleys, public transportation, walking and biking as viable
options. Then advertising did the rest.

Anyway let's lay out what we need and what we don't:

(in my humble opinion)

On 30/07/2012 14:40, TibetanMonkey, the

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher
(I may have given up my dream of riding
a bike in America, but
walking... walking is the ultimate
necessity of the human being.

Are paraplegics not human?

Cannot see the point.
All are very sorry for paraplegics.
Do you mean that because of paraplegics
other healthy more lucky humans
should not practice & enjoy walking?

No.

there's the issue that monkey's claim that
"walking is the ultimate necessity of the
human being" can't stand up, if you'll
pardon the pun.
possum

To make it dangerous, to make it stupid, to make it impractical
doesn't mean walking is not the ultimate need of the human being.

In most places around the world --those who dismiss the American way
of life-- walking is still the way to go. But not only that, walking
allows socialization, which is another human necessity.

When we want to punish people we put them in solitary confinement in a
3' by 3' cell. "Roaming free" is the ultimate necessity, which
includes the bike, the scooter, the motorcycle and anything that is
not a cage. Grab a donkey if you will and go exploring your world.
That's what Jesus would do.

[TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher]

rOn Wed, 1 Aug 2012 08:09:22 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

On Tue, 31 Jul 2012 22:01:40 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

rOn Tue, 31 Jul 2012 09:09:27 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

Post by TibetanMonkey, the Beach Cruiser Philosopher

On Mon, 30 Jul 2012 17:41:32 -0700 (PDT), "TibetanMonkey, the Beach

What were the engineers thinking about when they built America around
the automobile?

Was America built, or did it grow?

Why America grew one way and Germany another?
In other words, why one grew smart and the other one not? Perhaps
because they failed one time and grew out of the ashes? Or why Hong
Kong grew around the scooter and not the automobile? Can we blame real
estate for the sprawl in America? London put a stop to growth in the
30's and that was a smart decision taken when we were really stupid.
Was it the politicians?
Perhaps we can name some names and be satisfied we found the guilty
party. At least we should be able to chart a better future, right?

I doubt engineers had a whole lot of say. They are not usually the
decision makers.

They can certainly refuse to follow stupid orders. ;)

We can not possibly blame the pedestrians and cyclists, right?

Nope. Who can you blame? Everyone does what they think is best for
them and theirs. It's not a holistic approach.
--
JS.

It's a profiteering approach, that's all it is.

Blame Henry Ford and yourself, the American Public. Henry built a car
that was cheap enough for Mr. Average Man to buy and Mr. Average
immediately began to clamor for better roads to drive his new Ford on.
Cheers,
John B.

The American public could not have been that dumb. It needed to kill
the trolleys, public transportation, walking and biking as viable
options. Then advertising did the rest.

I hate to tell you, but you are imagining things. The reason trolley
lines and other forms of public transportation died is due to lack of
public use. Income dropped and the systems were abandoned. In locales
where it is less practical to drive the systems are still in use.
Think New York, London and other city subway systems.

Exactly, the sprawl made the walking, biking and public transportation
impractical. It is said that L.A. pioneered this model and all the
rest followed.

And again you demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking
about. Prior to WW II what you call Los Angeles was a small town in
the general area of city hall. surrounded by open country and the
surrounding towns, Pasadena, Hollywood, Burbank, and so on, were
separate towns. If, for example, you traveled from Burbank to L.S. you
were in open country for much of the trip.
Then all the ex-GI's that had been posted through California decided
that it would be a nice place to live and moved there.
Nobody pioneered anything and hardly anyone planned anything.

Yeah, sure. We have city planners or we don't? Are they taking into
account that every community needs a sidewalk and possibly a bike
path?

You don't know much about Los Angeles, do you.
What you call "Los Angeles", the so called Los Angeles Basin, was,
historically, not a single city but rather an area  made up of a
number of separate cities. Burbank, Pasadena, et al. To believe that
there was some sort of coordinated city planning that incorporated the
desires and needs of all of the municipalities is infantile.

Or they count on everybody walking on the road like here?

NYC and London on the other hand prove that where density is high a
number of good things happen. At least walking is practical. Lack of
parking make this "miracle" happen as well.

The first bonds were issued to finance the construction of the N.Y
subway system in 1899, or thereabout. The first subway opened in 1904.
The population of NYC was approximately 3.4 million in 1900 and is
about 8.2 million (as of 2011). Are you trying to say that the city
planners foresaw this growth rate and planned for it?
But more to the point, I've walked in just about every major Asian
city, outside mainland China, I've walked in Miami Florida, and more
than a few other American cities, I've walked in rural New England.
Now how is it that I can do this and you can't? Am I some sort of
Super Man, tall buildings with a single bound and all that, or is
something the matter with you?

Remember, I'm not Superman. I'M ONLY A WISE MAN.

Sad thing is that the bike could manage the sprawl but brutal traffic
is often a deterrence.

God gave you two perfectly good legs. Why is it that you can't use
them?

God gave me two legs and a brain, but the brain says that dying on the
road, fighting along the way, is not the smart thing to do.
God's people don't have a problem with that because they usually sit
on the couch and go shopping in their SUV. Then they go to church on
Sundays --or whatever day-- and rejoice.

People ride bicycles every day. Some of them are
riding bicycles from one side of the country to the other, I provided
you with references to both N.Y. Highway Department bicycle routes and
several groups that organize long distance rides in the state.
People walk every day. Some even walk across the U.S., more then 50
individuals in the past 10 years, or so. You, on the other hand can't
seem to walk or bike to the corner market without some sort of panic
attack.
Your problem is reality and your inability to face it. Rather then
admit that you are too timid to go out doors you concoct some sort of
pseudo philosophy in order to justify your fears and hide away from
life.

Around here it's the Jews that do that and they walk long distances on
the road, next to cars, family and all. But they are happy, terribly
happy.

Cheers,
John B.

Numbers don't lie. Something like a fraction of 1% ride to work. The
rest play it safe and drive.

Walking is just nonsense in cities designed for the car and plagued by
crime. Our cities are ghost towns, except for a few exceptions, such
as NYC, San Francisco, Seattle, places in Colorado and Oregon, Maine,
Gainesville and Key West.

"38 states got an F in Infrastructure, no one got an A, and Maine got
the only B."

http://bikeportland.org/2011/05/24/oregon-slips-to-8th-in-bike-friendly-states-rankings-53499

***

But you may ride your bike in a gated community if you find that big
enough. I find them ridiculously confined. I need space, lots of
space. But you can't even get to Ft. Lauderdale from Miami. It's a
suicidal mission.