Proudly, I live in Massachusetts…we realize that human rights aren’t a matter of public opinion. We all from time to time discrimenate and that shouldn’t be something we take so far as to put into effect of law. As to the rest of the country…well it’s their own burden. I just wish I could get all the tax money I’m wasting on them back so I don’t have to pay for what I find equally morally irreprehensible. 

If marriage is a scared institution based on religion then all government sanctioned marriage should be banned. It is a province of the church and should not be regulated by the state. Let the church of your faith set the laws to which you live in marriage. Everything else is a civil contract.That is logic…however, the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family isn’t about logic. It is about passing the buck of blame. Gays are not the end of marriage. Divorce isn’t either. It’s Americans being greedy and working themselves into the ground for less pay so they can afford STUFF. Most marriages end because of financial strife. That strife is born out of the richest country on earth wasting its resources on cheap junk to fill ticky tacky boxes and drive around cheap but gigantic automobiles. Instead we could have lots of time off to enjoy with their family, friends, and community (which includes church). They could have basic, good health care…but that’s socialist tripe. Why have all of that when we could just hate the gays and solve all of our problems? Sadly, Americans don’t have great values at all. We value stuff, not people, not life, not joy or happiness. Everything our founding fathers pursued. Further, we don’t value human rights, which should never be subject to so called “democracy.” No such right exists to vote away or to seize by any power.

Let me ask, is the free market doing such a great job that big bad government is inconsiderable. Who makes government so bad? We are the government. It is laughable the pains that “ordinary” working people go through to try and prove that somehow what we have right now is actually working really, really, really well. AND that it should be let do what it wants even more so without obstruction so it can do things “better.” Believe me, it is the private insurance companies that would sell us out to the Death Squads in seconds if meant more profit. It is after all their ONLY obligation. AND oh, by the way. We don’t need to pay more. We already are paying the most of anyone in the world. Silly, just silly. All this contortion over some ingrained distrust of the very thing we invented (modern democracy).

I know this is ages old…but thought I’d drop a line anyways. I think it is commendable to look at affordable sustainable design. I would argue that a big, big part of making something sustainable and/or affordable should also confront existing structures. Further, we shoudl look at what affordable truly means. Is it building/rennovating a house cheaply up front or building/rennovating it well so that it stands the test of time and costs less to operate and maintain? And just a bit more here……Are we talking costs of human labour to rennovate or hand-restore say wood-framed windows, versus tossing them for the latest-greatest green technology, which actually uses a huge amount of energy to produce? In some ways, this isn’t terribly disimilar to food in this country. We’ve gotten used to cheap everything and have confused that with affordable. Maybe building sustainably is a lot like sustainability and food, not counting food “products,” should be a bit more expensive as it requires human input and time, and is more rare or limited in quantity, but when it is fresh, locally grown, it is fantastic! I think we should get over this cult of everything for nothing and accept that some things, those things that matter, do require sacrifice and quality over the bargain basement. It will mean less time and money for X box, or cable, or cool clothes and shoes, but I think we can all be honest about the value of those things anyhow.If you want I can show hundreds of homes in just Canton, Ohio, that can be purchased and restored in a sustainable way for $50,000 or less. That’s just one town. There are hundreds.

I seriously doubt it. Why not invest the same resources into say Youngstown, Ohio? Or heck one of the scores of low-density strip mall burbs that already pollute the landscape in that area? Either approach would offer more benefits to the environment from rebuilding than from putting up a brand new, glorified “green” subdivision on the fringe of sensitive habitat and at sea level in Florida. I do understand that some new building in new places will likely be inevitble even if we infill every built-up city in the country. Unfortunately, we haven’t even come close to that objective. Further, I’m less worried about our cities (though most still require some TLC) than our suburbs, which are all built out of plastic for a planned obsolescence that will make “urban decay” from this past century seem downright graceful. Can you imagine how the typical tract home would handle disinvestment or redlining for 50+ years? We already see what strip malls degrade to in just ten years. Google strip mall blight if you don’t believe me.

Well I don’t stand anymore for the so called “food” subsidies, which really means commoduty subsidies than I do for running a new government program that is essentially a corporate give away like Medicare Part B. Thanks GW and the GOP for both. Though Dems had their fair share of culpability.A great deal of places around the world have figured this issue out for the most part. And you know what, they have done so with far less resources to start with. We are avery wealthy country, supposedly filled with entrepreneurs and innovators. Yet, we can’t figure this out? We can’t somehow come up with a healthcare system that covers everyone and actually focuses on people being healthy not just “patients” to pump full of drugs and run all sorts of fancy tests and operations on? Our system as it stands is beyond disgrace. It is a nightmare of humanity. We spend more money on inhuman treatment than on prevention and actual healthiness. We don’t incentivize say healthy living, which is a choice, but still a choice we have to pay for if we decide to only drive everywhere and not walk or to only eat fake, processed food, let alone fast food. I’m a pragmatist, but this situation is plainly a nightmare…and those with the most to loose don’t realize it. The ones with a few bucks (or a couple billion) in the game don’t mind this lack of awareness or outright stupidity. The answer to healthcare isn’t more of the same that is for sure. It is more complicated than simply reforming or socializing medicine as well. It also requires looking at our lifestyle (i.e. what we eat, where/how we live, walking, etc.). Those are personal choices, but also the government has had a heavy hand (thanks in no small part to both parties) in stacking the deck legislatively. Otherwise, over 75% of what you see in the grocery store would have to be labeled “fake.” Just pick up a loaf of “Wonder Bread” the next time you’re in the store, or anything else in the “bread aisle.” If it has more than five or so ingredients (flour, salt, water, yeast and maybe things such as sessamie, honey, or oats for flavour) then it is not bread! I digress…Good animation. Sure the lingo could be tightened up, but the point is pretty salient. Imagine if we paid for fire protection the same way we pay for healthcare…I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a convincing argument as to why I should be fighting to keep my expensive private insurance that, now that I’ve had cancer, would dump me in a heartbeat if I ever left my place of employment. Between my employer and myself we pay a total of of more than $6,000 per year in premiums for one person (just me). That doesn’t include co-pays, deductables for this and that, maximum coverages, the fact that they tell me who I can go to and see for doctors, and in what order, and require more paperwork than the a communist bureaucracy could ever dream of. Isn’t that what we keep seeing in those scary commercials about socialized medicine? Well we have far worse already…bring on the Soylant Green and the Death Squads!

Proudly, I live in Massachusetts…we realize that human rights aren’t a matter of public opinion. We all from time to time discrimenate and that shouldn’t be something we take so far as to put into effect of law. As to the rest of the country…well it’s their own burden. I just wish I could get all the tax money I’m wasting on them back so I don’t have to pay for what I find equally morally irreprehensible. 

If marriage is a scared institution based on religion then all government sanctioned marriage should be banned. It is a province of the church and should not be regulated by the state. Let the church of your faith set the laws to which you live in marriage. Everything else is a civil contract.That is logic…however, the Family Research Council or Focus on the Family isn’t about logic. It is about passing the buck of blame. Gays are not the end of marriage. Divorce isn’t either. It’s Americans being greedy and working themselves into the ground for less pay so they can afford STUFF. Most marriages end because of financial strife. That strife is born out of the richest country on earth wasting its resources on cheap junk to fill ticky tacky boxes and drive around cheap but gigantic automobiles. Instead we could have lots of time off to enjoy with their family, friends, and community (which includes church). They could have basic, good health care…but that’s socialist tripe. Why have all of that when we could just hate the gays and solve all of our problems? Sadly, Americans don’t have great values at all. We value stuff, not people, not life, not joy or happiness. Everything our founding fathers pursued. Further, we don’t value human rights, which should never be subject to so called “democracy.” No such right exists to vote away or to seize by any power.

Let me ask, is the free market doing such a great job that big bad government is inconsiderable. Who makes government so bad? We are the government. It is laughable the pains that “ordinary” working people go through to try and prove that somehow what we have right now is actually working really, really, really well. AND that it should be let do what it wants even more so without obstruction so it can do things “better.” Believe me, it is the private insurance companies that would sell us out to the Death Squads in seconds if meant more profit. It is after all their ONLY obligation. AND oh, by the way. We don’t need to pay more. We already are paying the most of anyone in the world. Silly, just silly. All this contortion over some ingrained distrust of the very thing we invented (modern democracy).

I know this is ages old…but thought I’d drop a line anyways. I think it is commendable to look at affordable sustainable design. I would argue that a big, big part of making something sustainable and/or affordable should also confront existing structures. Further, we shoudl look at what affordable truly means. Is it building/rennovating a house cheaply up front or building/rennovating it well so that it stands the test of time and costs less to operate and maintain? And just a bit more here……Are we talking costs of human labour to rennovate or hand-restore say wood-framed windows, versus tossing them for the latest-greatest green technology, which actually uses a huge amount of energy to produce? In some ways, this isn’t terribly disimilar to food in this country. We’ve gotten used to cheap everything and have confused that with affordable. Maybe building sustainably is a lot like sustainability and food, not counting food “products,” should be a bit more expensive as it requires human input and time, and is more rare or limited in quantity, but when it is fresh, locally grown, it is fantastic! I think we should get over this cult of everything for nothing and accept that some things, those things that matter, do require sacrifice and quality over the bargain basement. It will mean less time and money for X box, or cable, or cool clothes and shoes, but I think we can all be honest about the value of those things anyhow.If you want I can show hundreds of homes in just Canton, Ohio, that can be purchased and restored in a sustainable way for $50,000 or less. That’s just one town. There are hundreds.

I seriously doubt it. Why not invest the same resources into say Youngstown, Ohio? Or heck one of the scores of low-density strip mall burbs that already pollute the landscape in that area? Either approach would offer more benefits to the environment from rebuilding than from putting up a brand new, glorified “green” subdivision on the fringe of sensitive habitat and at sea level in Florida. I do understand that some new building in new places will likely be inevitble even if we infill every built-up city in the country. Unfortunately, we haven’t even come close to that objective. Further, I’m less worried about our cities (though most still require some TLC) than our suburbs, which are all built out of plastic for a planned obsolescence that will make “urban decay” from this past century seem downright graceful. Can you imagine how the typical tract home would handle disinvestment or redlining for 50+ years? We already see what strip malls degrade to in just ten years. Google strip mall blight if you don’t believe me.

Well I don’t stand anymore for the so called “food” subsidies, which really means commoduty subsidies than I do for running a new government program that is essentially a corporate give away like Medicare Part B. Thanks GW and the GOP for both. Though Dems had their fair share of culpability.A great deal of places around the world have figured this issue out for the most part. And you know what, they have done so with far less resources to start with. We are avery wealthy country, supposedly filled with entrepreneurs and innovators. Yet, we can’t figure this out? We can’t somehow come up with a healthcare system that covers everyone and actually focuses on people being healthy not just “patients” to pump full of drugs and run all sorts of fancy tests and operations on? Our system as it stands is beyond disgrace. It is a nightmare of humanity. We spend more money on inhuman treatment than on prevention and actual healthiness. We don’t incentivize say healthy living, which is a choice, but still a choice we have to pay for if we decide to only drive everywhere and not walk or to only eat fake, processed food, let alone fast food. I’m a pragmatist, but this situation is plainly a nightmare…and those with the most to loose don’t realize it. The ones with a few bucks (or a couple billion) in the game don’t mind this lack of awareness or outright stupidity. The answer to healthcare isn’t more of the same that is for sure. It is more complicated than simply reforming or socializing medicine as well. It also requires looking at our lifestyle (i.e. what we eat, where/how we live, walking, etc.). Those are personal choices, but also the government has had a heavy hand (thanks in no small part to both parties) in stacking the deck legislatively. Otherwise, over 75% of what you see in the grocery store would have to be labeled “fake.” Just pick up a loaf of “Wonder Bread” the next time you’re in the store, or anything else in the “bread aisle.” If it has more than five or so ingredients (flour, salt, water, yeast and maybe things such as sessamie, honey, or oats for flavour) then it is not bread! I digress…Good animation. Sure the lingo could be tightened up, but the point is pretty salient. Imagine if we paid for fire protection the same way we pay for healthcare…I’m still waiting for someone to come up with a convincing argument as to why I should be fighting to keep my expensive private insurance that, now that I’ve had cancer, would dump me in a heartbeat if I ever left my place of employment. Between my employer and myself we pay a total of of more than $6,000 per year in premiums for one person (just me). That doesn’t include co-pays, deductables for this and that, maximum coverages, the fact that they tell me who I can go to and see for doctors, and in what order, and require more paperwork than the a communist bureaucracy could ever dream of. Isn’t that what we keep seeing in those scary commercials about socialized medicine? Well we have far worse already…bring on the Soylant Green and the Death Squads!

I’m a pragmatist, of the urban mechanics variety, so I don’t want to get too bent out of shape. I will admit that CEO’s may have some constructive role to play, but the obersvation that CEO’s aren’t necessarily the right brand identity for “Urban Renaissance,” seems to ring true to be honest. When I think of Michael Porter, I think of bringing Wal-Mart and Foot Locker to the city…or Starbucks and Whole Foods. I suppose on one hand I can live with that reality, on the other what I think cities need now are stronger independent businesses, locally grown foods accessible at corner stores, better schools owned and operated by whoever will get the job done, better transportation options, and better energy options, and a revival of local building trades taht values preservation as much as “green” building. I don’t see CEO’s having much to bring to the table on these issues. These are issues of innovation, and let’s be real. CEO’s, at least of the big company sort, are not innovators, except maybe of accounting tricks and off-shoring policies. 

Democracy requires an engaged and educated public. Too often, I find that “education” is somehow seen as elitism. The same of course is thought of those Europeans with their fancy operas, and parks, and buildings, and socialized medicine. Yeah, who needs all that elitist stuff? Especially when we get the privilege of paying three times as much to insurance companies that then make us fill out enough paperwork to fill a phone book every year. The “free market” option is so worth fighting for…I still stand by my assertion that New England (my region of residence) should secede and stop sending its tax dollars to Flyover Country.

As a pedestrian that walks at least 5+ miles a day in Boston I find the cyclists to be no more unruly than motorists…though that is saying quite a bit. Boston is a compact city, sure, but we need to squeeze cars into less space so we can have an appropriate bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. The time of dedicating so much free space to cars has too-long dominated, even this graceful city. More bike lanes, wider sidewalks, more greenery, and less “free” asphalt!

Oh, btw…places that have a semblence of urban fabric and transit system (buses at least), have found far-higher than marginal increases in ridership from “free transit.” The public understands that yes, they are paying for it somehow (tourist taxes, property taxes, sales taxes,or some other public subsidy), removing the fare box makes it stress free. Plus, when you have to pay everytime you do something; you think about it and more actively. You decide whether to use ”it.” Most auto drivers don’t have to think about costs to just get in their (each and every time) cars but, except when they regularly encourter tolls or parking charges (gas, and other expences rarely register in driving viewpoints; until prices spike). Same difference with transit fares. Granted, regular users might get a pass, but they pay for it at some point, and the same is true for automatic toll collection and parking passes. The automated part only reduces that “inhibition” marginally, while all “free” arrangements change the game pretty fundamentally.