[speedingpullet]

Little bit north of y’all, but what the hay…

Areas:
Most of Westside L.A – Santa Monica, West L.A, Brentwood, Beverly Hills/BH adjoining, parts of Culver City, West Hollywood, Palms/Mar Vista, Marina del Rey, Pacific Palisades, Topanga and Malibu.
San Fernando Valley – Sherman Oaks, Encino, Studio City and eastern Tarzana, Calabasas, Woodland Hills.
Basically – less than 15 road miles from my husband’s work in Santa Monica – might stretch it to 20 miles for a truly spectaular house in the Malibu hills with land and a view.

House/Condo – SFH only

Price Range: $0 – $750K (although will only seriously consider the high end for abovementioned Malibu hills house). Realistically, more like $400K – $700K.

Size anything from 800 sq ft to 2500 sq ft – the proviso being that the lot square footage has to be 5 times the house sq footage (minimum being 6000 sq ft lot, no matter how small the house is). This helps to weed out very expensive houses, and recently built McMansions/Persian Palaces (of which there are a tragic overabundnace here in L.A)

Currently laughing hollowly at the listings on ZipRealty every day, with no intention of spending one red cent until prices come down to 1999 levels – with 5% compound interest per annum.

In other words, what prices should be here, not the delusional ones that seem to be a specialty of the L.A market.

We’re living in a great rental, with non-FB landlords, who are happy to give us a month-to-month, yearly or two-yearly agreement. We’ll stay here (and our landlords are happy to have us here) until the housing market gets real.

[speedingpullet]

Little bit north of y’all, but what the hay…

Areas:
Most of Westside L.A – Santa Monica, West L.A, Brentwood, Beverly Hills/BH adjoining, parts of Culver City, West Hollywood, Palms/Mar Vista, Marina del Rey, Pacific Palisades, Topanga and Malibu.
San Fernando Valley – Sherman Oaks, Encino, Studio City and eastern Tarzana, Calabasas, Woodland Hills.
Basically – less than 15 road miles from my husband’s work in Santa Monica – might stretch it to 20 miles for a truly spectaular house in the Malibu hills with land and a view.

House/Condo – SFH only

Price Range: $0 – $750K (although will only seriously consider the high end for abovementioned Malibu hills house). Realistically, more like $400K – $700K.

Size anything from 800 sq ft to 2500 sq ft – the proviso being that the lot square footage has to be 5 times the house sq footage (minimum being 6000 sq ft lot, no matter how small the house is). This helps to weed out very expensive houses, and recently built McMansions/Persian Palaces (of which there are a tragic overabundnace here in L.A)

Currently laughing hollowly at the listings on ZipRealty every day, with no intention of spending one red cent until prices come down to 1999 levels – with 5% compound interest per annum.

In other words, what prices should be here, not the delusional ones that seem to be a specialty of the L.A market.

We’re living in a great rental, with non-FB landlords, who are happy to give us a month-to-month, yearly or two-yearly agreement. We’ll stay here (and our landlords are happy to have us here) until the housing market gets real.

[speedingpullet]

Chico
Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

ROTFLMAO!

I’d call that a real case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[speedingpullet]

Chico
Detonating a nuclear device within the city limits results in a $500 fine.

ROTFLMAO!

I’d call that a real case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

[speedingpullet]

Ahhh, jg, you didn’t anwer my questions….never mind. Far be it from me to be anal-retentive about it… 😉

You have a point – America paid less tax back ‘n the day.

Bearing in mind that the America you are referring to was a sleepy, largely argarian, cultural backwater up until WW1. Where people died on the street for lack of decent medical care, and life expectancy was in the high 40’s due to terrible living conditions, illiteracy..and westward expansion was still in the cultural memory of all concerned…those were the days.

That was then and this is now…more people, more fingers in more pies…as much as we’d all like to return to the ‘good old days ‘ of times past, none us us here could really survive it.
You can’t have the “Greatest Country in the World’ without someone, somewhere, paying for it to be so. By all means, rest on your laurels a while, but Greatness costs.

Sounds to me that what you’re suggesting is a form of Anarchy (or is it Libertarianism? i can never distinguish the two).

Nothing wrong with Anarchy as a politcal form – it may surpise you to know that both Trotsky and Stalin considered it as a potential social framework for Russia after the revoloution, before deciding on socailist communism.

You could do no better than read “The Dispossessed” by Ursula le Guin, for a fascinatiing fictional “what-if?” about how Anarchy would work in the ‘real’ world.

Unfortunately, like a lot of other political systems, its great for the Big Picture, but falls somewhat short of perfect for ‘the devil is in the details’ kind of stuff.

Would you, for instance, be willing to stop paying for hospitals, emergency services, education, military , infrastructure of all kinds, simply because they part and parcel of the Government?
Would you be prepared to live with the consequences of cutting off all forms of socialised help, including any form of government support for you and yours?
Would you be able (willing, I’m sure, but able) to protect your family, loved ones and property from any schmoe who took a liking to it/them, bearing in mind that you would get absolutley no help doing it, other than what you can beg, borrow or steal?
How would you deal with national problems like clean water, emissions, pollution, power supples, when America has reverted basically back into small Nation-States?

How would America grow as a nation, socailly, scientifically, industrially, etc… with no ‘grand plan’ to fall back on?
How would you compete with the rest of the world, when your population is trying to survive childhood without decent, modern, nationwide medical care, or struggling to find a teacher that can educate them to a standard where they can compete outside the borders of the USA? .

Or, most importantly, do you really think people are capable of thriving with no supervision at all?

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think human nature is altruistic enough to trust everyone to be on the same page, at the same time.

Let’s face it, Westerners are having enough trouble living under captialism without freaking them out by giivng them the ‘total freedom’ to do as they please.
There are a lot of predators out there (and not just non-taxpayers, either) who would do a number on a lot of people, and wthout laws and institutions in place to curb them, you’ll get Anarchy in the derogatory sense, rather than the political sense.

So – if that’s too grim a scenario, what kind of ‘government’ do you allow in order to stop total social decay?
How do you balance needing some form of nationwide oversight with the need to be self-sufficient? How self sufficient can you be and still have meaningful dealings with the rest of the planet? Wheres the perfect balance, the ultimate point of inflection?

I’m not getting at you, i’m genuinely interested.

Like everyone else, I don’t want to pay taxes, and want to change the way things are. But I have difficulty imagining a way that would work – for the benefit of the majority of people and not for the benefit of a minority – that would be radically different from the political system we have now.

Anyway, I have things to see and people to do 😉

I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, truly.

[speedingpullet]

Ahhh, jg, you didn’t anwer my questions….never mind. Far be it from me to be anal-retentive about it… 😉

You have a point – America paid less tax back ‘n the day.

Bearing in mind that the America you are referring to was a sleepy, largely argarian, cultural backwater up until WW1. Where people died on the street for lack of decent medical care, and life expectancy was in the high 40’s due to terrible living conditions, illiteracy..and westward expansion was still in the cultural memory of all concerned…those were the days.

That was then and this is now…more people, more fingers in more pies…as much as we’d all like to return to the ‘good old days ‘ of times past, none us us here could really survive it.
You can’t have the “Greatest Country in the World’ without someone, somewhere, paying for it to be so. By all means, rest on your laurels a while, but Greatness costs.

Sounds to me that what you’re suggesting is a form of Anarchy (or is it Libertarianism? i can never distinguish the two).

Nothing wrong with Anarchy as a politcal form – it may surpise you to know that both Trotsky and Stalin considered it as a potential social framework for Russia after the revoloution, before deciding on socailist communism.

You could do no better than read “The Dispossessed” by Ursula le Guin, for a fascinatiing fictional “what-if?” about how Anarchy would work in the ‘real’ world.

Unfortunately, like a lot of other political systems, its great for the Big Picture, but falls somewhat short of perfect for ‘the devil is in the details’ kind of stuff.

Would you, for instance, be willing to stop paying for hospitals, emergency services, education, military , infrastructure of all kinds, simply because they part and parcel of the Government?
Would you be prepared to live with the consequences of cutting off all forms of socialised help, including any form of government support for you and yours?
Would you be able (willing, I’m sure, but able) to protect your family, loved ones and property from any schmoe who took a liking to it/them, bearing in mind that you would get absolutley no help doing it, other than what you can beg, borrow or steal?
How would you deal with national problems like clean water, emissions, pollution, power supples, when America has reverted basically back into small Nation-States?

How would America grow as a nation, socailly, scientifically, industrially, etc… with no ‘grand plan’ to fall back on?
How would you compete with the rest of the world, when your population is trying to survive childhood without decent, modern, nationwide medical care, or struggling to find a teacher that can educate them to a standard where they can compete outside the borders of the USA? .

Or, most importantly, do you really think people are capable of thriving with no supervision at all?

Maybe I’m too cynical, but I don’t think human nature is altruistic enough to trust everyone to be on the same page, at the same time.

Let’s face it, Westerners are having enough trouble living under captialism without freaking them out by giivng them the ‘total freedom’ to do as they please.
There are a lot of predators out there (and not just non-taxpayers, either) who would do a number on a lot of people, and wthout laws and institutions in place to curb them, you’ll get Anarchy in the derogatory sense, rather than the political sense.

So – if that’s too grim a scenario, what kind of ‘government’ do you allow in order to stop total social decay?
How do you balance needing some form of nationwide oversight with the need to be self-sufficient? How self sufficient can you be and still have meaningful dealings with the rest of the planet? Wheres the perfect balance, the ultimate point of inflection?

I’m not getting at you, i’m genuinely interested.

Like everyone else, I don’t want to pay taxes, and want to change the way things are. But I have difficulty imagining a way that would work – for the benefit of the majority of people and not for the benefit of a minority – that would be radically different from the political system we have now.

Anyway, I have things to see and people to do 😉

I’ve really enjoyed this conversation, truly.

[speedingpullet]

So…let me get this straight….

..allow the Church to regulate every part of our lives, even if you’re not a Christian.

Allow ‘communities’ to decide who meets their standard of ‘reasonableness’ in order to give non-taxpayers help.

What exactly do you mean by ‘communities’?

Do these ‘communities’ have to be Christian?

Or can other faiths get a shoe-in too?

How about those who don’t profess to any religion?
(I guess they’ll have to join the Church to get any help, eh?)

Where will these Churches and communities get the money to help non-taxpayers?

Are you suggesting that the Government should siphon off the money already being paid, by you, as a tax-payer into these programs?

Or are you suggesting that taxpayers should just pay as much as they think they should? Or nothing, depending on their outlook. After all these are non-taxpayers and have no rights under the law anymore.

Who would oversee this glorious mosaic of ‘churches and communities’ to make sure that the ‘Alms For The Poor’ actually get to where they are meant to go (and not in the pocket of some unscrupulous pastor for his personal embellishment)?

Or, would it just be up to the particular church/community to decide how much, and to whom, help and money should go to?

Please, I’m all ears. I’d love to know how this would work on a detailed level.

[speedingpullet]

So…let me get this straight….

..allow the Church to regulate every part of our lives, even if you’re not a Christian.

Allow ‘communities’ to decide who meets their standard of ‘reasonableness’ in order to give non-taxpayers help.

What exactly do you mean by ‘communities’?

Do these ‘communities’ have to be Christian?

Or can other faiths get a shoe-in too?

How about those who don’t profess to any religion?
(I guess they’ll have to join the Church to get any help, eh?)

Where will these Churches and communities get the money to help non-taxpayers?

Are you suggesting that the Government should siphon off the money already being paid, by you, as a tax-payer into these programs?

Or are you suggesting that taxpayers should just pay as much as they think they should? Or nothing, depending on their outlook. After all these are non-taxpayers and have no rights under the law anymore.

Who would oversee this glorious mosaic of ‘churches and communities’ to make sure that the ‘Alms For The Poor’ actually get to where they are meant to go (and not in the pocket of some unscrupulous pastor for his personal embellishment)?

Or, would it just be up to the particular church/community to decide how much, and to whom, help and money should go to?

Please, I’m all ears. I’d love to know how this would work on a detailed level.

[speedingpullet]

jg said:

Any family that wants welfare — be it food, tuition, or medical care assistance — should be expected to abide by reasonable standards of conduct, too.

Wow, sometimes jg, I can’t figure out if you’re just taking the mickey or are just bat$hit crazy… 😉

OK, let’s do a bit of reducto ad absurdam on this…

– What do you mean by ‘reasonable’?

– Who would enforce this’ reasonable’ conduct?

– Who gets to chose what is ‘reasonable’?

– How would you monitor when non-taxpayers conduct drops below ‘reasonable’ (if you could ever come up with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ code of ‘reasonableness’ for the entire population of the country)?

For someone who rails against the all-seeing-eye role of Government already, what you’re suggesting is a whole new tier of beaurocracy on top of the already burdensome level its at now.

Unless, which I believe you might be, you’re suggesting that everyone gives up thier personal morals/ethics and listen only to ordained Ministers/Priests/Pastors in the Christian Church.
In which case, you’re suggesting that we revert back to a system very similar to the politcal/moral power afforded by the Imams, in all those countries that we’re currently at war with….and where we’re currently trying to bring ‘Democracy and Freedom’.

[speedingpullet]

jg said:

Any family that wants welfare — be it food, tuition, or medical care assistance — should be expected to abide by reasonable standards of conduct, too.

Wow, sometimes jg, I can’t figure out if you’re just taking the mickey or are just bat$hit crazy… 😉

OK, let’s do a bit of reducto ad absurdam on this…

– What do you mean by ‘reasonable’?

– Who would enforce this’ reasonable’ conduct?

– Who gets to chose what is ‘reasonable’?

– How would you monitor when non-taxpayers conduct drops below ‘reasonable’ (if you could ever come up with a ‘one-size-fits-all’ code of ‘reasonableness’ for the entire population of the country)?

For someone who rails against the all-seeing-eye role of Government already, what you’re suggesting is a whole new tier of beaurocracy on top of the already burdensome level its at now.

Unless, which I believe you might be, you’re suggesting that everyone gives up thier personal morals/ethics and listen only to ordained Ministers/Priests/Pastors in the Christian Church.
In which case, you’re suggesting that we revert back to a system very similar to the politcal/moral power afforded by the Imams, in all those countries that we’re currently at war with….and where we’re currently trying to bring ‘Democracy and Freedom’.

[speedingpullet]

“Well said, speedingbullet”

Pas une balle, mon cher, mais une poulet 😉

Nice point, though – no amount of ignorance has ever stopped anyone from getting pregnant.

[speedingpullet]

“Well said, speedingbullet”

Pas une balle, mon cher, mais une poulet 😉

Nice point, though – no amount of ignorance has ever stopped anyone from getting pregnant.

[speedingpullet]

Depends on where you’re from.
The majority of young (ie under 40) couples in the UK are unmarried – many of them parents.
Same in many other parts of Northern Europe – Germany, the Netherlands, Scandanavia, even parts of France, Italy and Spain which are traditionally Roman Catholic.

So far, society has not fallen apart….

Having a piece of paper saying you’re married isn’t going to make you love and care for your children any better than not having the piece of paper. If you’re going to be a crap parent, then even being married by the Pope himself is not going to make you better at it.
Conversely, you can be a good parent, whether or not you’re married.

[speedingpullet]

Depends on where you’re from.
The majority of young (ie under 40) couples in the UK are unmarried – many of them parents.
Same in many other parts of Northern Europe – Germany, the Netherlands, Scandanavia, even parts of France, Italy and Spain which are traditionally Roman Catholic.

So far, society has not fallen apart….

Having a piece of paper saying you’re married isn’t going to make you love and care for your children any better than not having the piece of paper. If you’re going to be a crap parent, then even being married by the Pope himself is not going to make you better at it.
Conversely, you can be a good parent, whether or not you’re married.

[speedingpullet]

No-such-Reality said:

“As another pointed out, the bulk of the stuff running on PBS under the brand names “Nova” or “Nature” blow Gore away.

PBS does better documentation without the conspiracy overtones, IMHO.”

That’ll be because most of the Nova’s you see are actually repackaged “Horizon” programmes from the BBC….

All they do is re-narrate it by someone with an american accent, and change the metric measurements into US Imperial.

Because, apparently, Americans have difficulty in understanding a perfect Recieved English accent (a la BBC announcers) and become confused when people talk about Kilos, Metres, etc… 😉

Next time you watch one, see if you recognise the narrator in the credits. Chances are it will be Andrew Sachs, and then you’ll know for sure it was made in the UK.

[Author]

Posts