What you are really talking about being a hard sell in America is collectivism. As well it should be. Americans know better, or at least most of them do, so we constantly turn back plans from the left to establish yet another version of their dreamy collectivist utopia.

Pretty amusing how frustrated you sound that we subjects just don't get it. If only we had your higher moral plane and could put aside our private interests for your vision of collective good, that the place would be so much better.

Not a whiff of elitist arrogance there, of course.

When will the American left understand and realize that collectivism is a failed ideology? Never, of course. People do not change religions because of empirical reality.

If you are interested in learning more about the URB and meet David Oates, City Club of Portland has a couple opportunities in June. On June 24, City Club's New Leaders' Council is going on a Boundary Walk with Mr. Oates and Metro President David Bragdon. We will walk part of the boundary and end up a restaurant for drinks and conversation. Then on June 26, City Club's monthly book club, Citizens Read, is discussing Mr. Oates' book. For more information about the Boundary Walk go to . And to learn about Citizens Read check out .

David Oates For community is a hard sell in America.

JK: What community? Why do so many planning advocates want a sense of community? What are they missing in their lives that a sense of community would help? What do they think that a sense of community would accomplish? Anyway, that is your vision, not mine.

I have my own vision and it does not include millions of people being jammed into a fixed area resulting in unaffordable housing on little tiny lots, wasted time in traffic congestion (or on mass transit watching drug deals), more pollution and more restrictions on personal freedom, or paying high taxes to pay for building un-economic high density neighborhoods that no one would live in if they had to actually pay their full cost.(Hint: the Pearl and the SoWhat.). And an overall lower standard of living. These are all certain outcomes of the higher density required to maintain the UGB at its current position.

My vision does not include protecting land so that farmers can pollute it with Ag chemicals to produce an economic output that is a tiny fraction of what industry would produce on the same land. And industry would provide far more, better paying jobs on that land (but farmers are more romantic).

My vision does not include driving out jobs because there is no land available for job creating companies.

This is part of why Oregon habitually has a high unemployment rate and is headed down the comparative economic ladder. Of course you will blame it all on Bush instead of your own flawed vision.

Thanks JK

I'll try those links again:

City Club Boundry Walk with David Oates and Metro President David Bragdon

City Club Citzen's Read

whether it's immutable human nature or the result of our crass consumption culture, people like karlock and sasha are selfish. if they're to understand conservation, it has to benefit them. it has to be air they breathe, water they drink, trees they like to look at, for them to care.

it must be nice to care so little about everyone else.

"it must be nice to care so little about everyone else"

It must be nice to care so little about the truth.

Take walk around the UGB and you'll find overcrowded neighborhoods and expansions sitting idle for years due to lack of planning. You'll find abundant marginal land sitting idle while development is crammed together without ANY considerations for the greater impacts to the community. The costs of this blind planning have been enormous and continue to degrade many aspects of livability and community.

Take a stroll over to the Washington County web site http://washtech.co.washington.or.us/measure37/ and check the M37 claims and look for the Hog farms, smelters or other destruction UGB proponents demogogued.

Interesting how simple observations about reality produce such outrage among "...a collection of surly individuals at dagger-points" who (let's just guess) aren't anywhere near the left 50$ of the spectrum. Aren't there other web sites for the dagger wielders?

I have better things to do with my time but...

"I have my own vision and it does not include millions of people being jammed into a fixed area resulting in unaffordable housing on little tiny lots, wasted time in traffic congestion (or on mass transit watching drug deals)"

Apparently JK objects to living on a spherical planet with a fixed land area.

"more pollution"

Addressed, inherently, by the UGB

" and more restrictions on personal freedom,"

A condition of life in a community... which antisocial types always object to.

" or paying high taxes to pay for building un-economic high density neighborhoods that no one would live in if they had to actually pay their full cost.(Hint: the Pearl and the SoWhat.)"

OK, that's a reasonable discussion, but not a clear case.

"And an overall lower standard of living."

Disputable and although containing economic components, ultimately an aesthetic argument.

" These are all certain outcomes of the higher density required to maintain the UGB at its current position."

I doubt it.

"My vision does not include protecting land so that farmers can pollute it with Ag chemicals"

Then support organic agriculture!

"to produce an economic output that is a tiny fraction of what industry would produce on the same land. And industry would provide far more, better paying jobs on that land (but farmers are more romantic)."

Important point, but based on assumptions about the cost of energy that may not pertain for very much longer...

"My vision does not include driving out jobs because there is no land available for job creating companies."

Oh really? A LAND shortage is holding up Oregon economic development? You could just as well argue that it is the landscape that is responsible for many of the jobs we have... by keeping this a place worth coming to.

And on and on. Where on earth do people like this come from? I think they make a lot of noise, but don't represent very many people.

Sasha, living in community isn't some religion or ideology... just the human condition, acknowledged and accepted by most normal people, and opposed by a few radicals.

You know people like Sasha and Karlock are representative of the short-sighted myopic viewpoints that is strangling Oregon and its economy.

They have never obviously lived or commuted in Los Angeles, Houston, or Detroit, where there is very little zoning, huge amount of sprawl and very little public transportation to speak of, and congestion that is on orders of magnitude greater than what we experience here.

It is the people who won't pay for public education, won't pay for infrastructure, won't pay for public services that are tanking the Oregon economy. If you have a brain drain of the best and brightest that Oregon produces (they go to out of state institutions of higher learning), if you cannot attract the best and brightest to come to Oregon to put down roots then you've already lost the battle.

It is ironic to me that the folks who seem to espouse "Community" work so hard to Eliminate it. Th e OSP guy was correct. He Did not say that The "Community" Activists Want Rules But Will Work As Hard To make them Their Rules. They Get Angry if we the "Non" Community Vote Against Their rules by taking away Police. Fire andLibraries Because We Can't Raise the Taxes any more for the Pet Projects.

Miles: (Quoting JK) "I have my own vision and it does not include millions of people being jammed into a fixed area resulting in unaffordable housing on little tiny lots, wasted time in traffic congestion (or on mass transit watching drug deals)"

Apparently JK objects to living on a spherical planet with a fixed land area. JK: No, JK objects to planners deciding how OTHER PEOPLE should live. I also object to planner’s misguided policies damaging Portland’s livability and driving away jobs and lowering our standard of living. You have a problem with that?

Miles: (Quoting JK) "more pollution" Addressed, inherently, by the UGB JK: Density <u>slightly</u> reduces overall pollution and concentrates it in a smaller area - the area where the people live. So people live in more pollution while reducing pollution where there are no people. Only smart growth advocates could come up with such a stupid idea.

Miles: (Quoting JK) " and more restrictions on personal freedom," A condition of life in a community... which antisocial types always object to. JK: I see you don’t like freedom and anyone who disagrees with you is antisocial- are you by any chance a city planner?

Miles: (Quoting JK) " These are all certain outcomes of the higher density required to maintain the UGB at its current position."

I doubt it. JK: Good, well reasoned argument.

Miles: (Quoting JK) "My vision does not include driving out jobs because there is no land available for job creating companies."

Oh really? A LAND shortage is holding up Oregon economic development?

JK: Are you so out of touch that you don’t realize that land supply is tight? And that it is because of government policies? And that restricted supply is driving up the price of housing (econ 101) and making it difficult for companies to find suitable land to employ people.

Thanks JK

Being a second generation Oregonian (how many out there are that anymore?) and raised on a small farm, I take umbrage at being called "romantic." There is nothing romantic about hard work. No one could eat without the farmers, that is just a fact pure and simple. Bring more industry to Oregon? Why??? The ones who do come here only do so for the tax breaks which do not help we the citizens of this state. Yes, we need more employment opportunities here. But to sacrifice the beauty and wonder that is this state just so people can build houses and businesses anywhere is just not acceptable. WE NEED THE UGB, MASS TRANSIT, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT CONTROLS SPRAWL. If these boundaries are not kept in place, I shudder to think how much more the quality of life in Oregon will be degradated. BTW, you don't want to get me started on ZPG for our Planet, I am a firm believer.

"WE NEED THE UGB, MASS TRANSIT, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT CONTROLS SPRAWL"

What a fraud.

They don't control sprawl at all.

They just force sprawl inwards overcrowdeding where most people live while failing miserably to provide or accomodate any of the needs of growth. Yet it's proponents, foolishly enamored with preventing any expanding development defend it as if it does.

The UGB and it's implementation is a cockamamie load of crap with only adverse effects.

JK: No, JK objects to planners deciding how OTHER PEOPLE should live. I also object to planner’s misguided policies damaging Portland’s livability and driving away jobs and lowering our standard of living. You have a problem with that?

Miles: I moved back here because it is a well planned city. My employer moved here because it is a well planned city that attracts people who have a creative vision and a community orientation. Thanks UGB... thanks Portland planners.

<h2>As for planners, decisions about how we shall live are made every day in corporate boardrooms, by unelected power brokers, marketeers, and so on. I prefer a planning department of an elected city government to most of the alternatives.</h2>

JK: Density slightly reduces overall pollution and concentrates it in a smaller area - the area where the people live. So people live in more pollution while reducing pollution where there are no people. Only smart growth advocates could come up with such a stupid idea.

Miles: We've spent most of the last century running away from pollution instead of mitigating it... We used to think there was an AWAY to run to. Most folks now know better. There is only one place, and it is called Planet Earth. Welcome aboard. Instead of fleeing, how about working to create clearner industries?

<hr/>

JK: I see you don’t like freedom and anyone who disagrees with you is antisocial- are you by any chance a city planner?

Nope, I'm not one of those dreaded city planners. In my experience the adolescent idea that "freedom" means "I can do whatever I want" usually gets cleared up by around age 25, and most folks come to understand the close relationship between "freedom" and "responsibility." In some cases however people never get past the "freedom" part. It's puzzling.

<hr/>

Miles: (Quoting JK) " These are all certain outcomes of the higher density required to maintain the UGB at its current position."

I doubt it. JK: Good, well reasoned argument.

Miles: Not an argument... just telling you that I doubt that these are "all"... "certain" outcomes. Your confidence in your opinions is impressive, that's all.

<hr/>

Miles: (Quoting JK) "My vision does not include driving out jobs because there is no land available for job creating companies."

Oh really? A LAND shortage is holding up Oregon economic development?

JK: Are you so out of touch that you don’t realize that land supply is tight? And that it is because of government policies? And that restricted supply is driving up the price of housing (econ 101) and making it difficult for companies to find suitable land to employ people.

Miles:

I interpret land prices as a reflection of the relationship between supply and demand... I have no idea what you mean by "tight." Land is priced to reflect the supply and the demand.

Government policies are surely implicated in the price of land and thus housing, but there is an ongoing debate about how much.

It is possible that housing prices are higher than they might otherwise be because of government policies, but then it is probable that people will save a bundle on commuting costs in the future. Presumably again, price reflects supply and demand, and perhaps people are factoring in avoided commuting costs too.

What is a sure thing is that Portland housing is cheap compared to 5 other major West Coast cities. (Yes, there is a long discussion about the afforability index, housing/income ratios... no time to go there.)

Furthermore, high housing prices mean that real peoples' INVESTMENTS are doing quite well. Thanks again UGB.

Sure price (UGB related or otherwise) creates barriers to entry for new buyers but nothing like the barriers to entry in other cities on the West Coast.

I would ask for the serious study that suggested that UGB driven land costs are limiting company relocation decisions... but there probably is some corporate "think tank" that has paid its shills to produce such a document... so don't bother. I'm not aware of an objective analysis that suggests this is the case.

<hr/>

Thanks JK

<hr/>

My pleasure, sort of. MH

Miles: I interpret land prices as a reflection of the relationship between supply and demand... I have no idea what you mean by "tight." Land is priced to reflect the supply and the demand. JK: Supply and demand - Metro has kept the supply of land artificially tight. That has raised the price of land so much that most people cannot afford a house anymore. Metro is creating a region of renters. That will guarantee a much lower standard of living for generations.

Miles: ... but then it is probable that people will save a bundle on commuting costs in the future. Presumably again, price reflects supply and demand, and perhaps people are factoring in avoided commuting costs too. JK: Wrong again if you value your time. High density city ALWAYS have longer commute times. Little Hong Kong has the world’s longest commute TIME because of the congestion that also ALWAYS follows high density. That is part of why people don’t like high density living. Why are people like you trying to shove it sown our throats?

Miles: What is a sure thing is that Portland housing is cheap compared to 5 other major West Coast cities. JK: Right for once, but you left out a little detail: All those other expensive cities also have tight growth controls forcing densification.

Miles: Furthermore, high housing prices mean that real peoples' INVESTMENTS are doing quite well. Thanks again UGB. JK: If you are gong to sell AND MOVE to a low cost area then this helps. For everyone else that is NOT going to move to Idaho or Nevada, it only means is that you pay higher property taxes and makes the first house un affordable to the middle class and lower. And drives up the cost of everything (like congestion that always accompanies high density). Before the planning idiots took over, you used to be able to buy a house on close to minimum wage.

Miles: Sure price (UGB related or otherwise) creates barriers to entry for new buyers but nothing like the barriers to entry in other cities on the West Coast. JK: Because they have even worse policies than metro.

Miles: I would ask for the serious study that suggested that UGB driven land costs are limiting company relocation decisions... but there probably is some corporate "think tank" that has paid its shills to produce such a document... so don't bother. I'm not aware of an objective analysis that suggests this is the case. JK: Corporate shill is an interesting term from a planning shill.

Thanks JK

ses: But to sacrifice the beauty and wonder that is this state just so people can build houses and businesses anywhere is just not acceptable. WE NEED THE UGB, MASS TRANSIT, AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT CONTROLS SPRAWL. If these boundaries are not kept in place, I shudder to think how much more the quality of life in Oregon will be degradated. JK: All you want to do is preserve your low density area by forcing others to live in a high density ghetto. Shame on you.

ses: BTW, you don't want to get me started on ZPG for our Planet, I am a firm believer JK: Perhaps you didn’t know that the U.S is already at ZPG. We only grow from immigration, so can I assume that you are against immigration. (Of course your farm does not employ any illegals)

Thanks JK

Miles asked, "I would ask for the serious study that suggested that UGB driven land costs are limiting company relocation decisions..."

You couldn't be more disconnected. Like so many with your absolutely certain views on the UGB you fail to demonstrate any understanding of how it's implementation has panned out. If you had followed, or would look into recent expansions you would know of the Metro's charade of identifying an industrial land UGB expansion. Their piece meal outcome of a lengthy process served only to create the illusion that adequate shovel ready land was made available as directed by the legislature and governor. To the contrary they merely worsened the dire situation which spawned the legislature and governor to charge them with finding land for industry and jobs for Oregonians.

Where do you get your firm beliefs that only "corporate shills" are decrying the lack of industrial land?

Like so many aligned with your claims, your case is completely devoid of the real world circumstances Oregon and Oregonians face.

It's almost as if the real world doesn't matter as long as your long ago established and equally obsolete beliefs go unchallenged.

There appears to be a deliberate lack of a learning curve.

Walter, Like all assertions based on an open admission of an absence of information, mine is an assertion that you can easily respond to by providing a URL to a serious study that provides reason to believe that corporate location or expansion decisions are being impeded by the UGB.

I pointed out to you that my own job and the company that I work for now were probably created because of the kind of proplanning culture Portland offers, and I'm sure that many others are too. That's just an anecdote, but I know it's real as far as it goes.

What's your evidence? As I said, I'm aware of none. Enlighten us.

I'm not talking about politicians yapping... I'm talking about some kind of serious independent study that found corporations choosing not to come to Oregon, because to some significant degree land was cheaper in Idaho, Washington, wherever. I'm open to real evidence.... Many people would be.

JK, your assumptions about commute times seem to presume the continuation of a car based culture in the urban environment. I find that improbable. Because I find that improbable I don't think the correlation you site about density and commute times, even if proven by reasonable and objective studies to be currently valid, is necessarily indicative of what it is possible to create. Have a little vision.

JK, you say

"JK: Because they have even worse policies than metro." Another way to say that would be that PDX has the best policies of any major city on the west coast ... But I understand that your preference is to be oppositional, so have it your way.

How is it that Portland with all it's "planning culture" is still the best city on the west coast in this area? I'm sure you'll have an explanation... but I don't think that is the point. A more realistic story, by your lights, might be to commend PDX for balancing planning with free market opportunities, far better than the other big West Coast cities have done.

JK, Corporate shill is an interesting concept to focus on, because as you are surely aware we are in the middle of an (anti)intellectual counter-revolution, in which corporate and conservative dollars fund pseudo-think tanks that are paid to produce "scholarship" that supports all sorts of positions that people who are free to do the research and come to their own conclusions do not reach.

"Planning shill"? Who are they? Who is paying them the big bucks to assert proplanning opinions?

The conservative strategy tries to reduce every position to the same level... a mere opinion... and ignore the fact that some opinions are bought and paid for by commercial interests, while others emerge from a position of academic or intellectual independence.

I think that "corporate shill" is a meaningful concept in 21st century America, and I think that "planning shill" is an example of a favorite Republican/ Fox News type of rhetorical strategy that creates false equivalences between left and right, where none exist.

I find it interesting that the some of the most ardent opposition to the UGB continue to call Oregon home. If I felt that the UGB was the reason for every ill, personal and socially, then I would sure as hell be leaving Oregon. I prefer to stay, however, because I feel that the planning laws in Oregon protect my way of life, regardless of where I were to call home in this state. If I preferred to call a farmhouse my home, there is an abundance of open, available land for me to find my niche. If city living is my bag, Portland is a hop, skip, and a jump away from just about anywhere in the state. Small metro? Eugene. Conservative college town? Corvallis. Beachfront? Lincoln City, Florence, blah, blah, blah. Point being, planning laws have kept Oregon, well, Oregon. With the conservative vitriol concerning land use laws, Oregon, unfortunately, may find herself among the likes of sprawling communities like Phoenix. Furthermore, the belief that planners wish to impose some supposed worldview on unsuspecting, unwilling individuals is misguided and malicious. Planners simply apply well-studied best practices to existing communities. City dwellers tend to prefer the lifestyle they live, and if planning causes 225 residents per square mile as opposed to 200, the difference is widely unnoticed, while recreating the same lifestyle that the individuals typically seek to live. To suggest that planners are out to create a utopian society is short sited. Figuring out what works best is far from utopia. Finally, collectivism has proven to work throughout history. Thriving Native American and African countries lived in harmony for hundreds of years until the colonization of Europeans. I am sure I will hear the argument, "well, European society triumphed," or some variation of this. And, I suppose if you choose to view it as a victory, so be it. I prefer to believe that the only thing the Europeans had over Natives were their willingness to fight and belief that they had some form of inherent right to others belongings. Which, in my opinion, does not represent progress. Violence is nothing more then communal-degradation and represents pre-historic, animalistic behavior. By the way, I realize that not all Native cultures represented a form of collectivism, however, when Europeans came across these pockets of collective individuals they were to blind to recognize the benefits of said society and destroyed them all the same (not to suggest that the tribes that begot violence with violence deserved annihilation).

Tony: I find it interesting that the some of the most ardent opposition to the UGB continue to call Oregon home. If I felt that the UGB was the reason for every ill, personal and socially, then I would sure as hell be leaving Oregon. JK: I am getting rally tired of planning worshipers telling people that if they don’t share the planner’s view of utopia they can go to hell.

Tony: Point being, planning laws have kept Oregon, well, Oregon. With the conservative vitriol concerning land use laws, Oregon, unfortunately, may find herself among the likes of sprawling communities like Phoenix. JK: You mean the Phoenix which has lower un-employment than Portland? Less traffic congestion? More affordable housing? And probably better schools, police and fire protection. Maybe Portland should be emulating Phoenix instead of Los Angeles.

Tony: Furthermore, the belief that planners wish to impose some supposed worldview on unsuspecting, unwilling individuals is misguided and malicious. Planners simply apply well-studied best practices to existing communities. JK: “well-studied” – where do you get this stuff ? Planners don’t study, they latch on to sound good, feel good concepts (a vision) and impose them on unsuspecting people WITHOUT TESTING THEM - WE ARE THEIR GUINEA PIGS.

Planners tell us that increasing density will reduce congestion and they are wrong. They say that increasing density will reduce pollution without telling us that we will be living in more pollution. They tell us that high density is cheaper, it isn’t. They tell us that mixed use is good without telling us that it increases crime. They tell us that cul de sacs are bad without telling us that they reduce crime. They tell us that people prefer living in high density without noticing that people have been choosing to leave high density cities for over a century. They tell us that high density reduces commuting distance without telling us that it results in longer commute times due to the congestion that accompanies density. They tell us that we should give up our cars and switch to mass transit to save energy and money without telling us that we will waste time, be less comfortable and be exposed to more crime and communicable diseases. And they are too illiterate to calculate that mass transit seldom saves energy or money compared to a small car. They pretend that the reason Portlanders can no longer afford to buy a home is that Portland is so desirable without telling us that they are telling that same line to every other city that their policies have made unaffordable. They tell us that parking should be in the rear of apartments and businesses without telling us that crime goes up several fold. They say cul de sacs should be opened up to pedestrian and bike paths without telling us that crime goes up by as much as ten times. They tell us that bubble curbs make it easier for pedestrians to cross the street without telling us that they have never bothered to gather data on their safety. They advocate speed bumps without telling us that they slow emergency vehicles, especially ambulances and fire trucks and may be getting more people killed than saved. Again they have never bothered to study the matter. (Yes I know that there are a few BS studies out there.) They tell us apartments should be close to noisy streets to provide eyes on the street to reduce crime as if people spent their nights looking out the window while not noticing that the real eyes on the street are provided by vehicle drivers. They say that sprawl increases obesity - it doesn’t. They say that commutes are longer in the suburbs - they aren’t (only a small percentage of jobs are in the central city now days). They build neighborhoods of high rise condos and wonder why there are no children without realizing that people with children seldom live in high rises. They say that light rail is less costly to operate than buses by comparing low ridership bus lines with light rail while an apples to apples comparison shows that rail costs more to operate than buses. They pretend that rail costs noting to build when doing cost comparisons.

Planners fundamental concepts are mostly wrong and they are imposing them on unsuspecting people all over the country, including Portland.

Summing it up: planners have a vision of a theoretically perfect world (mostly from a hundred years ago), which, in practice ,does not work because most of their fundamental concepts are simply wrong. They are either idiots or liars. It doesn’t much matter which, they all should find something useful to do besides play Sim City with other people’s lives.

Tony: Finally, collectivism has proven to work throughout history. JK: What planet are you living on? Collectivism has failed every where it was tried. Didn’t you notice that it didn’t work in Russia. It didn’t work in China. It didn’t work in Viet Nam. It didn’t work in Cambodia. It isn’t working in Cuba. All it did was get millions of people killed. Is that what you want here?

Tony: Thriving Native American and African countries lived in harmony for hundreds of years until the colonization of Europeans. JK: They lived happily in the stone age, warring with and enslaving their neighbors, while Europeans sorted out the laws of nature and figured out how to live longer and better lives for everyone. That sort of progress simply DOES NOT happen under collectivism. Even Europe is losing ground the U.S. because of excessive collectivism over there. The faster we understand nature, the better off we all will be. It is the fastest way to better people’s lives.

Tony: I prefer to believe that the only thing the Europeans had over Natives were their willingness to fight JK: Did you happen to notice the natives didn’t even discover the wheel, let alone ways to improve people’s lives. Did you happen to notice that they used horses which pollute more than cars. (A horse’s tail pipe emits material far more toxic than a car’s.)

Tony: and belief that they had some form of inherent right to others belongings. Which, in my opinion, does not represent progress. Violence is nothing more then communal-degradation and represents pre-historic, animalistic behavior. JK: Don’t you know that some natives raided other native’s villages and stole things? Including slaves. Is that your dream: to make slaves out of people? Europeans figured out how to replace slaves with machines.

Why don’t you try dreaming of living in the 22nd century rather than the 17th century.

Thanks JK

Jim, you're right, I am wrong. You're techniques of anger and incessant attacks are effective in getting people to listen and agree with you! Your argumentative skills truly display your willingness to trust people, but, I am certain that trust is hard to develop after growning up in a home with parents that didn't like you, several relationships were your partner treated you poorly, and a job with (insert municipality here) were a supervisor disregarded your obvious knowledge of the topic to only focus on your frumpy, dorky personality (see, I am also capable of making assertions without any fact to support them, I just need anger and spite, thanks for that technique!)and passed you over for promotions for individuals with better "people skills". My understanding is that this site is for discussion, not attacks, take your anger back to saveportland, which, for you, evidently means to allow anybody and everybody to do what ever they want without responsibility. I too would rather have 7 people sitting around a corpoarte board table "controlling" my life rather then elected officials. Thanks for helping me see the light. Plus, read a damn book that wasn't written by a white man (a privelage that I also claim). Maybe then you would understand that a)not all native cultures were as you characterize them any more then you could characterize all of Europe together (although you try) but pray tell, how in the hell can you compare Norway to Romania? No similarity at all, yet both in Modern day Europe. Norway, which by the way, has a Gross Domestic Income of over $52,000/year (being left behind?) Then maybe you would realize that there were societies in America that developed runnig water and flusible toilets hundreds of years before Europeans. Who had irradicated nearly all of their communicable dissease (a feat we can not even claim today) and even had elections that went, every time, to the winner. b) Natives didn't ride horses until Europeans brought them here, 10,000 years after these native "savages" arrived here. I digress, only to inform you that I am looking ahead to tommorow, I have tommorrow to live for. Where as, as you have demonstrated, only have your anger to look forward to. Get some conseling, and maybe you can stop expressing anger that is directed from 1950 to your unthoughtful parents.

tony: Jim, you're right, I am wrong. You're techniques of anger and incessant attacks are effective in getting people to listen and agree with you! Your argumentative skills truly display your willingness to trust people, but, I am certain that trust is hard to develop after growning up in a home with parents that didn't like you, several relationships were your partner treated you poorly, and a job with (insert municipality here) were a supervisor disregarded your obvious knowledge of the topic to only focus on your frumpy, dorky personality (see, I am also capable of making assertions without any fact to support them, I just need anger and spite, thanks for that technique!)and passed you over for promotions for individuals with better "people skills". JK: I see you ran out of factual arguments. Sore loser.

Goodby JK

<hr/>