Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
Home Repair (alt.home.repair) For all homeowners and DIYers with many experienced tradesmen. Solve your toughest home fix-it problems. |
Reply |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to misc.consumers, misc.consumers.house, misc.rural, alt.home.repair,alt.recovery.clutter
|
|||
|
|||
political relocation and Overpopulation Town Project.
Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco
friendly By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007 Comments (30) Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. Scroll down for more... Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time. He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery. Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way. At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet". Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal. "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1&expand=true http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...elocation.html http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...2294bb85?hl=en http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Turning...3747045&page=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/ http://freetownproject.com/ http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus http://christianexodus.org http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1918592007 http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106 http://www.projectprevention.org Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit.../68190-politic al-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html Hi. I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists in small towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists concentrate forces like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project, http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly federal and can be imported. Housing unit size could also be limited to crowd large families but regular zoning is a big problem because it makes it expensive for overpopulation activists to move in and build a majority. Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in your hometown. NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds abortions and it is too overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to move to or build a majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still only a tiny fraction of their education funding. Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays, especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees, who would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns and would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are ideologically committed to small government. -A --------- Forwarded message --------- Subject: My speech to County Commission I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so environmentally callous that they would turn down even subsidized contraception and squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of local contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation. But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is to stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the responsibility to fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively with parents. So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing such reproductive activities? There is no ethical construct by which that is fair. So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I might as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately. And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the Republicans. The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in which most babies are planned. Local Republicans oppose zoning which is bad for affordable housing, and Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a direct democratic referndum on zoning, which makes the Republicans the party of direct democracy. -A To the Editor: Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people seem to be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led by Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at the economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to the 2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about 25% for the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of Detroit. This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from most other minority communities in a way that is massively under appreciated, totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart of economic conservatism. lj-cut text="Read more" You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of nonparents. And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see is that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to transfer wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from rich to poor adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities and more specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax burdens and consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms. It may behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this huge and inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink some political alliances with minority parents versus those with corporations. See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25% nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will be voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form of schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave. They also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people in the middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that you can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession. So stop subsidizing them. -A Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I don't think much of it as a political issue because direct environmentalism distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global warming. The windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to 400hp (you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's beyond me why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA about 25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and Colorado City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think that has on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly federal. Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of children than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8% children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco is both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be inevitable because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is 22.2% children. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities in the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find very little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's badly neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable political parties. A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the west. See, http://freetownproject.com/ http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia http://christianexodus.org I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very important and far more cost effective than public education, and better for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to make this possible in the rest of the country. -A Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form of childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or more members of this group live in the same town? county? state? Anyone here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX? -A Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a myopic digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro- development. I want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants who may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with limiting the SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any limits on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An overpopulation town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds, ballfields, childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies other than banning ballfields. -A FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of declining European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support for people who have children. Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic low, with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe. All European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per woman. |
#2
Posted to misc.consumers,misc.consumers.house,misc.rural,alt.home.repair,alt.recovery.clutter
|
|||
|
|||
political relocation and Overpopulation Town Project.
Al said (on or about) 12/29/2007 19:08:
Meet the women who won't have babies - because they're not eco friendly By NATASHA COURTENAY-SMITH and MORAG TURNER - More by this author » Last updated at 22:05pm on 21st November 2007 Comments (30) Had Toni Vernelli gone ahead with her pregnancy ten years ago, she would know at first hand what it is like to cradle her own baby, to have a pair of innocent eyes gazing up at her with unconditional love, to feel a little hand slipping into hers - and a voice calling her Mummy. But the very thought makes her shudder with horror. Because when Toni terminated her pregnancy, she did so in the firm belief she was helping to save the planet. Scroll down for more... Desperate measures: Toni Vernelli was steralised at age 27 to reduce her carbon footprint Incredibly, so determined was she that the terrible "mistake" of pregnancy should never happen again, that she begged the doctor who performed the abortion to sterilise her at the same time. He refused, but Toni - who works for an environmental charity - "relentlessly hunted down a doctor who would perform the irreversible surgery. Finally, eight years ago, Toni got her way. At the age of 27 this young woman at the height of her reproductive years was sterilised to "protect the planet". Incredibly, instead of mourning the loss of a family that never was, her boyfriend (now husband) presented her with a congratulations card. While some might think it strange to celebrate the reversal of nature and denial of motherhood, Toni relishes her decision with an almost religious zeal. "Having children is selfish. It's all about maintaining your genetic line at the expense of the planet," says Toni, 35. "Every person who is born uses more food, more water, more land, more fossil fuels, more trees and produces more rubbish, more pollution, more greenhouse gases, and adds to the problem of over-population." While most parents view their children as the ultimate miracle of nature, Toni seems to see them as a sinister threat to the future. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1&expand=true http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit...elocation.html http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...2294bb85?hl=en http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Turning...3747045&page=1 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Why_breed/ http://freetownproject.com/ http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Exodus http://christianexodus.org http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=1918592007 http://www.abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3401106 http://www.projectprevention.org Overpopulation or Childfree Town Project http://www.city-data.com/forum/polit.../68190-politic al-towns-extreme-places-political-relocation.html Hi. I am writing because I am interested in overpopulation activists in small towns. I am hoping that if overpopulation activists concentrate forces like the Libertarians of the Free Town Project, http://freetownproject.com/ we can build a majority that can replace public school, playground, ballfield, and childcare funding with contraception and abortion funding and end up saving a great deal of money especially since Social Security and Medicare funding are mostly federal and can be imported. Housing unit size could also be limited to crowd large families but regular zoning is a big problem because it makes it expensive for overpopulation activists to move in and build a majority. Anyway, what do you think? Can such a majority be built in your hometown. NYC is the only municipality I know of that funds abortions and it is too overcrowded and thus difficult and expensive to move to or build a majority in. And NYC's abortion funding is still only a tiny fraction of their education funding. Three groups likely to be allied in this municipal cause are gays, especially conservative gays like Log Cabin Republicans, retirees, who would be hypocrites because they usually have grown children and grandchildren but these grandchildren often live in different towns and would be unaffected by local education cuts, and Libertarians who are ideologically committed to small government. -A --------- Forwarded message --------- Subject: My speech to County Commission I came accross a shocking statistic. In America, and by inference in Buncombe County, 2 out of 3 parents are so environmentally callous that they would turn down even subsidized contraception and squeeze out babies anyway; which calls into question the ability of local contraception funding to save the planet from overpopulation. But in that case there is something else a county can do and that is to stop susidizing parenthood. It is fundamental that the responsibility to fund schools, childcare, playgrounds and ballfields lies exclusively with parents. So how is it fair that I, as a taxpaying nonparent, should be subsidizing such reproductive activities? There is no ethical construct by which that is fair. So since none of you seem to be funding contraception anyway, I might as well vote for those who would defund parenthood, while contraception and abortion are so cost effective that funds can be raised privately. And of course that would, and does, switch me to the true party of the environment, affordable housing and direct democracy, the Republicans. The Republicans help the environment by cutting or attempting to cut parental subsidies like playgrounds, childcare, ballfields and public schools, which is effective against overpopulation in a society in which most babies are planned. Local Republicans oppose zoning which is bad for affordable housing, and Nathan Ramsey alone proposed a direct democratic referndum on zoning, which makes the Republicans the party of direct democracy. -A To the Editor: Contrary to most political alliances and strategies, LGBTQ people seem to be making the most progress in the profit driven corporate world led by Log Cabin Republicans and HRC. To see why, one need only look at the economics of LGBTQ communities like Provincetown MA. According to the 2000 census, Provincetown had only 8% children, compared to about 25% for the nation and 31% for the generally politically allied city of Detroit. This means LGBTQ communities are fundamentally different from most other minority communities in a way that is massively under appreciated, totally politically incorrect, and lies at the very heart of economic conservatism. lj-cut text="Read more" You are largely nonparents, with the economic interests of nonparents. And despite all the political rhetoric, what the corporations can see is that so far liberal government subsidies have done far more to transfer wealth from nonparents to parents than to move wealth from rich to poor adults; and when nonparents, like me, form communities and more specifically school districts, we are relieved of huge tax burdens and consequently experience economic (and environmental) booms. It may behoove nonparents to better understand and acknowledge this huge and inherently conservative factor and perhaps use it to rethink some political alliances with minority parents versus those with corporations. See, I told you the ONLY answer was contraception, abortion and gay rights. So get on task. The main problem is that the US town with the smallest percentage of children is not in Cascadia. It is the gay community of Provincetown MA with 8% children compared to about 25% nationally. Does Cascadia have a gay town like Provincetown? I will be voting Republican because they subsidize parenthood less in the form of schools, childcare, TANF, playgrounds, ballfields and family leave. They also reduce the population more by killing more anti-choice people in the middle east. Also, I am in the southeast and here the Republicans are further from the center and therefore more likely to seceed so that you can be rid of them. They are more for state's rights. Also, public schools teach national unity, which is the real enemy of secession. So stop subsidizing them. -A Although I do some energy conservation work on a hands on basis, I don't think much of it as a political issue because direct environmentalism distracts attention and then funding from overpopulation and contraception, which is the ONLY way to actually stop global warming. The windmills were for electric generation, but I don't much care. Seven billion people just cannot live sustainably and efforts to do so are counterproductive and diversionary. Though we could limit yachts to 400hp (you lived in FL, those big semi-planers are truly absurd. It's beyond me why the little jet ski's get the complaints.) I'm more interested in defunding parenthood including public education. Did you know that Provincetown MA is only 8% children? San Francisco is 14%, the USA about 25%, Detroit 31.1%, Maywood CA (a hispanic LA suburb) is 37% and Colorado City AZ (polygamist) is 60.4% children. What effect do you think that has on property taxes? especially since old age subsidies are mostly federal. Do you know of any towns with a larger or smaller percentage of children than 8% or 60.4%. If I can find a town outside the Northeast with 8% children, I will move there and pay the property taxes. Though Frisco is both too big and too expensive for my tastes. Expensive may be inevitable because low property taxes would cause speculation. My county is 22.2% children. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/48/4805000.html I'm doing a lot of political and demographic research on localities in the west lately so I can figure out where I want to live. I can find very little reference material on comparitive municipal politics. It's badly neglected. There are many more towns to choose from than viable political parties. A libertarian county has already been chosen, Loving County in the west. See, http://freetownproject.com/ http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2140483&page=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cascadia http://christianexodus.org I oppose public education because I am not a parent and wish to stop subsidizing parenthood. However subsidized contraception is very important and far more cost effective than public education, and better for the environment. Texas secession might tilt the balance enough to make this possible in the rest of the country. -A Local governments may be doing a bunch of myopic and reactive environmental stuff, but they are doing almost nothing to reduce fertility rates and are subsidizing parenthood heavily in the form of childcare, playgrounds, ballfields and public schools. Do any two or more members of this group live in the same town? county? state? Anyone here in Nevada? AZ? NM? eastern OR? west TX? -A Limiting housing counts does NOTHING for fertility rates and is a myopic digression from overpopulation. So in that sense I am pro- development. I want enough housing units for everyone ESPEICIALLY domestic migrants who may be moving for political purposes. I have no problem with limiting the SIZE of houses in order to crowd large families, but I oppose any limits on unit counts, unit densities, or building height. An overpopulation town funds contraception and abortion INSTEAD OF playgrounds, ballfields, childcare, or schools. It has NOTHING TO DO with land use policies other than banning ballfields. -A FRANCE'S HIGH BIRTH RATE PARTLY DUE TO GOVERNMENT INCENTIVE France Only European Country With Replacement Level Fertility France's "robust birth rate," which is "bucking the trend" of declining European birth rates, is "could be attributed to government support for people who have children. Birth rates in European countries recently have reached a historic low, with the largest and most recent fall occurring in Eastern Europe. All European countries recorded birth rates of more than 1.3 children per woman. Is there a point here somewhere? |
#3
Posted to misc.consumers,misc.consumers.house,alt.home.repair
|
|||
|
|||
political relocation and Overpopulation Town Project.
Stupid-ass Full-quoter Elmo wrote:
Is there a point here somewhere? I'm pretty sure the point wasn't to copy the whole damn thing in a reply, only to add a single line to the end. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Duct relocation. | Home Repair | |||
fuse box relocation | UK diy | |||
fuse box relocation | UK diy | |||
Soil Pipe Relocation | UK diy | |||
dishwasher relocation | Home Repair |