On 10/18/2022 5:22 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:tin7vc$3qvbd$1@dont-email.me:
>
>> On 10/18/2022 12:27 PM, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:til0ds$3ii9d$1@dont-email.me:
>>>
>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:09 PM, The Horny Goat wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2022 19:15:04 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>>>>> <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/12/2022 6:44 PM, Quadibloc wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wednesday, October 12, 2022 at 2:47:29 PM UTC-6, Lynn
>>>>>>> McGuire wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Winning" in Ukraine will be shortly followed by all dying
>>>>>>>> in nuclear fire.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Only if Russia wants that to happen to it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> John Savard
>>>>>>
>>>>>> True that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Obviously what Putin most wants is an immediate surrender and
>>>>> a victory parade in Kiev.
>>>>>
>>>>> What he wants and what he's likely to get are two quite
>>>>> different things.
>>>>>
>>>>> What >I'm< worried about is that the outcome of this war is
>>>>> going to turn Russia into a Chinese satellite that dances at
>>>>> Mr Xi's command.
>>>>
>>>> That victory parade might have Putin in a radiation suit in a
>>>> radiologicals proof vehicle.
>>>>
>>> Do they make radiologicals proof hearses?
>>
>> Yes. They are Russian LAVs and tanks in Ukraine.
>>
> Well, we wouldn't want the drivers in the funeral procession to
> get irradiated, I guess.>

But they are not missile proof.

Lynn

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 11:45:52 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>>> when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>>> their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>
>> Certainly doesn't help. Neither does keeping the police from
>> arresting criminals, and all the other insane policies the fascist
>> left are so fond of.
>>>
>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do
>>> you?
>>>
>> Vote Republican. Or *anything* but Democrat.
>>
Well maybe not United Russia (that's V Putin's party) :)

On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on any
>>>>>>> metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA several
>>>>>> times. The pollution is always worse than Houston. Of
>>>>>> course, I live outside the third outer ring which is about 60
>>>>>> miles across.
>>>>>>
>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost thousands
>>>>> more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly business
>>>>> environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>
>>>>Is it worth it ?
>>>
>>> Yes, in spades.
>>
>>Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In San
>>Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>
>Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>
>One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning and
>the desirability of California to immigration from other states
>and countries. Fundamentally, the large population centers
>are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains or
>ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>
>Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury apartments/homes
>rather than more affordable flats and starter homes, and you get the
>current situation.
>
>The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>
>I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do you?

It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.

And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor, at
least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that no house
was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires deliberately
started. Or people mugged.

Some actually have jobs and so literally only need housing they can
afford.

Some might be employable.

Others might be treatable -- if they agree. And employable -- if they
stay on their meds or program.

And some are and have always been criminals, taking advantage of the
confusion to live a life of squalor while being superior to everyone
else -- in their own mind.

Zoning changes are allowing some interesting developments: on a lot of
unspecified size there is now a community (with association fees) of
five houses (about the same square footage as ours) with a green space
in the middle. These go for $600K, so are not themselves affordable --
but if the people who move were renting, that will open up rental
units to others and might eventually make renters scarcer than rentals
again, reducing rents.

Some of the 'burbs are requiring extended notice periods for large
increases. Want to bump the rent by 50%? You may be required to give
six months notice to the renter. Some are also restricting the "first
& last & cleaning deposit" custom. This is intended to make renting
work for more people.

The city attorney is identifying people who get charged with petty
crimes a lot, including those diverted to alternative programs a lot,
to see if something that actually ends their behavior can be found.
Something consistent with low-level offenses, of course.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:

> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
> Lurndal) wrote:
>
>>Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on
>>>>>>>> any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer ring
>>>>>>> which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost
>>>>>> thousands more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly
>>>>>> business environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>>
>>>>>Is it worth it ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>
>>>Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>>work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>>apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In
>>>San Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>>
>>Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>>depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>>
>>One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning
>>and the desirability of California to immigration from other
>>states and countries. Fundamentally, the large population
>>centers are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains
>>or ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>>
>>Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and starter
>>homes, and you get the current situation.
>>
>>The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>>when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>>their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>
>>I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do
>>you?
>
> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>
> And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor,
> at least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that
> no house was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires
> deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>
Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of houses,
stores, and government offices being broken into, fires started and
people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and still call them
"protests."

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-10-19 09:29, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
> news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>> Lurndal) wrote:
>>
>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>>
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on
>>>>>>>>> any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer ring
>>>>>>>> which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost
>>>>>>> thousands more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly
>>>>>>> business environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>>
>>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>>> work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>>> apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In
>>>> San Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>>>
>>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>>> depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>>>
>>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning
>>> and the desirability of California to immigration from other
>>> states and countries. Fundamentally, the large population
>>> centers are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains
>>> or ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>>>
>>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>> apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and starter
>>> homes, and you get the current situation.
>>>
>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>>> when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>>> their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>>
>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do
>>> you?
>>
>> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>>
>> And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor,
>> at least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that
>> no house was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires
>> deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>>
> Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of houses,
> stores, and government offices being broken into, fires started and
> people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and still call them
> "protests."
>

They were protests that got out of hand...

....some times because police deliberately provoked the protestors.

On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:03:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:

>On 2022-10-19 09:29, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>> news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>> Lurndal) wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on
>>>>>>>>>> any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer ring
>>>>>>>>> which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost
>>>>>>>> thousands more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly
>>>>>>>> business environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>>>
>>>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>>>> work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>>>> apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In
>>>>> San Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>>>> depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>>>>
>>>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning
>>>> and the desirability of California to immigration from other
>>>> states and countries. Fundamentally, the large population
>>>> centers are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains
>>>> or ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>>>>
>>>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>>> apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and starter
>>>> homes, and you get the current situation.
>>>>
>>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>>>> when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>>>> their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do
>>>> you?
>>>
>>> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>>>
>>> And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor,
>>> at least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that
>>> no house was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires
>>> deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>>>
>> Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of houses,
>> stores, and government offices being broken into, fires started and
>> people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and still call them
>> "protests."
>>
>
>They were protests that got out of hand...
>
>...some times because police deliberately provoked the protestors.

So "mostly peaceful" then? (yeah right)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:03:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com> wrote:
>
>>On 2022-10-19 09:29, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>> news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>>> Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on
>>>>>>>>>>> any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer ring
>>>>>>>>>> which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost
>>>>>>>>> thousands more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly
>>>>>>>>> business environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>>>>> work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>>>>> apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In
>>>>>> San Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>>>>> depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>>>>>
>>>>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning
>>>>> and the desirability of California to immigration from other
>>>>> states and countries. Fundamentally, the large population
>>>>> centers are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains
>>>>> or ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>>>>>
>>>>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>>>> apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and starter
>>>>> homes, and you get the current situation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>>>>> when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>>>>> their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do
>>>>> you?
>>>>
>>>> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>>>>
>>>> And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor,
>>>> at least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that
>>>> no house was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires
>>>> deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>>>>
>>> Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of houses,
>>> stores, and government offices being broken into, fires started and
>>> people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and still call them
>>> "protests."
>>>
>>
>>They were protests that got out of hand...
>>
>>...some times because police deliberately provoked the protestors.
>
>So "mostly peaceful" then? (yeah right)

There are three sets of people who usually show up for scheduled
protests:

- The set of peaceful protestors
- The set of anarchists that are attracted to such events
- The set of criminals attempting to take advantage of crowds

The set of looters is created from a union of the last two sets,
with very little membership from the first.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:VFW3L.269156$IRd5.225092@fx10.iad:

> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:03:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On 2022-10-19 09:29, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>> news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>>>> Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles,
>>>>>>>>>>>> on any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up
>>>>>>>>>>>> its air.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer
>>>>>>>>>>> ring which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they
>>>>>>>>>> started keeping records. The price of that is gasoline
>>>>>>>>>> that's $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US
>>>>>>>>>> (except Hawaii, where it's brought in by ship), and
>>>>>>>>>> cars that cost thousands more, and the 2nd more
>>>>>>>>>> business unfriendly business environment in the US (and
>>>>>>>>>> it rivals New York).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people
>>>>>>> have to work at minimum wage per week to afford the
>>>>>>> average one bedroom apparment. In Los Angenes, it was
>>>>>>> about 100 (per *week*). In San Jose, it's over 140. Per
>>>>>>> *week*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of
>>>>>> population depending on what side of the argument you are
>>>>>> on).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather
>>>>>> zoning and the desirability of California to immigration
>>>>>> from other states and countries. Fundamentally, the large
>>>>>> population centers are geographically limited (i.e.
>>>>>> surrounded by mountains or ocean on all sides), which
>>>>>> limits the space available.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>>>>> apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and
>>>>>> starter homes, and you get the current situation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough,
>>>>>> and when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA
>>>>>> and SF for their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term,
>>>>>> do you?
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>>>>>
>>>>> And the subject of much whining and local politics on
>>>>> Nextdoor, at least in my area. It's amazing how many people
>>>>> believe that no house was ever broken into before the BLM
>>>>> protests. Or fires deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>>>>>
>>>> Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of
>>>> houses, stores, and government offices being broken into,
>>>> fires started and people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and
>>>> still call them "protests."
>>>>
>>>
>>>They were protests that got out of hand...
>>>
>>>...some times because police deliberately provoked the
>>>protestors.
>>
>>So "mostly peaceful" then? (yeah right)
>
> There are three sets of people who usually show up for scheduled
> protests:
>
> - The set of peaceful protestors
> - The set of anarchists that are attracted to such events
> - The set of criminals attempting to take advantage of crowds
>
> The set of looters is created from a union of the last two sets,
> with very little membership from the first.
>
They were also prevalent enough that in some cities, the police
were - admittedly - unable to do anything about that. That's not a
*peaceful* protest, that's an armed insurgency.

That the current Democrats *approve* of, openly. Including you.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> schrieb:
> On Tuesday, October 4, 2022 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-6, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Crimea's a tough one. It's "native population" are the Crimean Tartars, but
>> they were about 11% of the population in 2014. At that point, ethnic
>> Ukrainians were only 16%, while ethnic Russians stood at 68%.
>>
>> This is partly due to Stalin's policy of 'Russification', scattering non-Russians
>> across the union, while moving ethnic Russians into their place. In 1989, less
>> than 2% of Crimeans were Tartars, but many have since moved back.
>>
>> On top of that, Crimea was part of the Russian Republic until 1954, when Khrushchev
>> transferred it to Ukraine.
>>
>> So saying 'who should have it' isn't easy. The people are mostly Russian, and it was
>> part of Russia until 70 years ago. OTOH, it was legally transferred to Ukraine, and
>> then illegally seized by Russia in 2014.
>
> Presumably Crimea belongs to whoever lived there before the first military aggression
> against Crimea took place.

So, let's give it back to the Bosporan Kingdom, then.

On 10/19/2022 9:01 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com> writes:
>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>
>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles, on any
>>>>>>>> metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up its air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA several
>>>>>>> times. The pollution is always worse than Houston. Of
>>>>>>> course, I live outside the third outer ring which is about 60
>>>>>>> miles across.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they started
>>>>>> keeping records. The price of that is gasoline that's
>>>>>> $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US (except Hawaii,
>>>>>> where it's brought in by ship), and cars that cost thousands
>>>>>> more, and the 2nd more business unfriendly business
>>>>>> environment in the US (and it rivals New York).
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>
>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people have to
>>> work at minimum wage per week to afford the average one bedroom
>>> apparment. In Los Angenes, it was about 100 (per *week*). In San
>>> Jose, it's over 140. Per *week*.
>>
>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of population
>> depending on what side of the argument you are on).
>>
>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather zoning and
>> the desirability of California to immigration from other states
>> and countries. Fundamentally, the large population centers
>> are geographically limited (i.e. surrounded by mountains or
>> ocean on all sides), which limits the space available.
>>
>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury apartments/homes
>> rather than more affordable flats and starter homes, and you get the
>> current situation.
>>
>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough, and
>> when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA and SF for
>> their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>
>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term, do you?
>
> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>
> And the subject of much whining and local politics on Nextdoor, at
> least in my area. It's amazing how many people believe that no house
> was ever broken into before the BLM protests. Or fires deliberately
> started. Or people mugged.
>
> Some actually have jobs and so literally only need housing they can
> afford.
>
> Some might be employable.
>
> Others might be treatable -- if they agree. And employable -- if they
> stay on their meds or program.
>
> And some are and have always been criminals, taking advantage of the
> confusion to live a life of squalor while being superior to everyone
> else -- in their own mind.
>
> Zoning changes are allowing some interesting developments: on a lot of
> unspecified size there is now a community (with association fees) of
> five houses (about the same square footage as ours) with a green space
> in the middle. These go for $600K, so are not themselves affordable --
> but if the people who move were renting, that will open up rental
> units to others and might eventually make renters scarcer than rentals
> again, reducing rents.
>
> Some of the 'burbs are requiring extended notice periods for large
> increases. Want to bump the rent by 50%? You may be required to give
> six months notice to the renter. Some are also restricting the "first
> & last & cleaning deposit" custom. This is intended to make renting
> work for more people.
>
> The city attorney is identifying people who get charged with petty
> crimes a lot, including those diverted to alternative programs a lot,
> to see if something that actually ends their behavior can be found.
> Something consistent with low-level offenses, of course.

The DA's office I work for is doing similar. Its actually part of why I
got my current job. I suspect a lot of jurisdictions in the US are
working on this.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
> I haven't seen much commentary on the Ukrainian war from the
> "Russian victory is inevitable" side here recently. You guys
> feeling OK?

A couple of days ago, however, despite all the advances the brave
Ukrainians have made on the battlefield, I heard some news that
made it sound like Russian victory _was_ inevitable again.

However, this _was_ a couple of days ago, and Russian victory
hasn't happened because of it, so perhaps it was overstated.

Basically, it was said that Russia's shelling and/or missiles had
knocked out half the electrical power plants in Ukraine, and that
this was liable to cause a "humanitarian catastrophe".

If the civilian population of Ukraine had to evacuate in order to
avoid freezing to death, then that _would_ be a Russian victory;
Russia could claim the territory, and fix or build electrical power
stations to allow it to be populated with Russians at its leisure.

If Russia does somehow manage to snatch victory from the
jaws of defeat by this or some other method, which I would still
not put past it, my position is unchanged. If I have not yet
stated it on this newsgroup, I will do so now:

Should we have to host the Ukrainian people in exile on our
lands because they have had to flee Russian conquest, then
we should do so for as long as is necessary. If, at some future
date, it finally becomes possible to bring a just resolution to
this conflict, then that should be done *then*. However long we
may have to wait.

Even if it takes 1,887 years before we can push every single
Russian out of every inch of Ukrainian soil so that the Ukrainian
people can reclaim their homeland, we should not shrink from
doing exactly that, once we have the ability to do so.

(For those who wonder where I got that particular number from,
1948 - 79 = 1887.)

John Savard

Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in
news:9d14b672-2936-4506-8b06-7155384c21a4n@googlegroups.com:

> On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-6, James
> Nicoll wrote:
>> I haven't seen much commentary on the Ukrainian war from the
>> "Russian victory is inevitable" side here recently. You guys
>> feeling OK?
>
> A couple of days ago, however, despite all the advances the
> brave Ukrainians have made on the battlefield, I heard some news
> that made it sound like Russian victory _was_ inevitable again.
>
> However, this _was_ a couple of days ago, and Russian victory
> hasn't happened because of it, so perhaps it was overstated.
>
> Basically, it was said that Russia's shelling and/or missiles
> had knocked out half the electrical power plants in Ukraine, and
> that this was liable to cause a "humanitarian catastrophe".

Ukrainians don't seem to care.

And there are now stories filtering out (through British tabloids,
so far, but the less ridiculous ones) that Putin ahs *already*
ordered a nuclear detonation (either a tac, using on the
battlefield, or as a demonstration out over the ocean), and either
the five levels of command between him and the actual launch button
told him to piss off, or they tried, and it simply didn't work.

Either scenario is, of course, something I predicted (though I
would have expected the refusal to obey the order to have inolved a
buleet to his head).

There are also stories filtering about about his insiders planning
for "life after Putin," which can *only* be realistic after he's
dead.

--
Terry Austin

Proof that Alan Baker is a liar and a fool, and even stupider than
Lynn:
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/sw-border-migration

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 16:30:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 10, 2022 at 1:48:46 PM UTC-6, James Nicoll wrote:
>> I haven't seen much commentary on the Ukrainian war from the
>> "Russian victory is inevitable" side here recently. You guys
>> feeling OK?
>
>A couple of days ago, however, despite all the advances the brave
>Ukrainians have made on the battlefield, I heard some news that
>made it sound like Russian victory _was_ inevitable again.

I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
200M?) to win.

Ignoring the minor detail that drafting 300,000 produced
demonstrations and resistence, so that drafting 20M would likely be
fatal to Putin, I noted when this started that, if it became a war of
attrition, Putin would win because he has a /lot/ more manpower
available to him than Ukraine has.

>However, this _was_ a couple of days ago, and Russian victory
>hasn't happened because of it, so perhaps it was overstated.
>
>Basically, it was said that Russia's shelling and/or missiles had
>knocked out half the electrical power plants in Ukraine, and that
>this was liable to cause a "humanitarian catastrophe".

And left much of the houses so damaged they cannot be heated.

Even though a "mild" winter is forcast, a "mild" winter in Ukraine can
be quite ... cold ... in most of the country (the Black Sea never
freezes, so there is probably a warmer zone in the south).

>If the civilian population of Ukraine had to evacuate in order to
>avoid freezing to death, then that _would_ be a Russian victory;
>Russia could claim the territory, and fix or build electrical power
>stations to allow it to be populated with Russians at its leisure.

Not if the soldiers stayed and kept fighting.

>If Russia does somehow manage to snatch victory from the
>jaws of defeat by this or some other method, which I would still
>not put past it, my position is unchanged. If I have not yet
>stated it on this newsgroup, I will do so now:
>
>Should we have to host the Ukrainian people in exile on our
>lands because they have had to flee Russian conquest, then
>we should do so for as long as is necessary. If, at some future
>date, it finally becomes possible to bring a just resolution to
>this conflict, then that should be done *then*. However long we
>may have to wait.
>
>Even if it takes 1,887 years before we can push every single
>Russian out of every inch of Ukrainian soil so that the Ukrainian
>people can reclaim their homeland, we should not shrink from
>doing exactly that, once we have the ability to do so.
>
>(For those who wonder where I got that particular number from,
>1948 - 79 = 1887.)
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>200M?) to win.

(Hal Heydt)
Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.

Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
population recovery might not happen.

In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On Sun, 23 Oct 2022 16:30:55 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
> <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>

<Snip>

> >
> >Basically, it was said that Russia's shelling and/or missiles had
> >knocked out half the electrical power plants in Ukraine, and that
> >this was liable to cause a "humanitarian catastrophe".
>
> And left much of the houses so damaged they cannot be heated.
>
> Even though a "mild" winter is forcast, a "mild" winter in Ukraine can
> be quite ... cold ... in most of the country (the Black Sea never
> freezes, so there is probably a warmer zone in the south).
>

Odesa has a temperature profile similar to Seattle's (perhaps a bit
cooler in the winter), though the precipitation is more evenly spread
out through the year. In contrast, Karkhiv's temperature profile
resembles Minneapolis (note that Kharkiv is several degrees latitude
further north).

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com

In article <rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com>,
Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>>200M?) to win.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
>fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
>would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.
>
>Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
>that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
>this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
>upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>population recovery might not happen.

(Hal Heydt)
And, I should add, that stripping out 20M adult males would
probably be hard to do whens starting from a base population of
140M, or some less.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>In article <rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com>,
>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>>>200M?) to win.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
>>fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
>>would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.
>>
>>Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
>>that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
>>this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
>>upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>>population recovery might not happen.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>And, I should add, that stripping out 20M adult males would
>probably be hard to do whens starting from a base population of
>140M, or some less.

Not to mention that their military industrial capabilities
cannot replace the current material losses in less than a
decade and would have a hard time providing uniforms, weapons,
ammunition, meals, medical care, aircraft, rockets, missiles, IFV's and MBTs.

They've already lost 10% or more of their total fighter-bomber (SU-34)
fleet, and a significant fraction of the remaining aren't combat ready;
they've shot a substantial fraction of their modern missile stocks, leaving
hit-or-miss legacy soviet missiles as their primary stocks. They're
buying old soviet arty ammo back from NK and cheap drones from Iran.

djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
news:rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com:

> In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or
>>was it 200M?) to win.
>
> (Hal Heydt)
> Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that
> have fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing
> 20M would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian
> economy.

There's already storeis being done on the number of men who have been
drafted (and have a very high chance of never coming home) or have
fled the country to avoid it. Something over a million have been
documented.
>
> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
> *men* that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly,
> but in this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe
> social upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
> population recovery might not happen.
>
Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
wife.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
news:UfA5L.83979$SqO3.22253@fx02.iad:

> djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M
>>>>(or was it 200M?) to win.
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that
>>>have fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even
>>>losing 20M would make for a severe adverse impact to the
>>>Russian economy.
>>>
>>>Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
>>>*men* that die, the population could recover reasonably
>>>quickly, but in this day and age, there'd likely be some rather
>>>severe social upheaval in the process...and, all things
>>>considered, the population recovery might not happen.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>And, I should add, that stripping out 20M adult males would
>>probably be hard to do whens starting from a base population of
>>140M, or some less.
>
> Not to mention that their military industrial capabilities
> cannot replace the current material losses in less than a
> decade and would have a hard time providing uniforms, weapons,
> ammunition, meals, medical care, aircraft, rockets, missiles,
> IFV's and MBTs.

They're not able to provide helmens and uniforms *now*.
>
> They've already lost 10% or more of their total fighter-bomber
> (SU-34) fleet, and a significant fraction of the remaining
> aren't combat ready;

And never were.

> they've shot a substantial fraction of
> their modern missile stocks, leaving hit-or-miss legacy soviet
> missiles as their primary stocks. They're buying old soviet
> arty ammo back from NK and cheap drones from Iran.
>
The end is near.

--
Terry Austin

"Terry Austin: like the polio vaccine, only with more asshole."
-- David Bilek

Jesus forgives sinners, not criminals.

On 2022-10-19 12:48, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
> news:VFW3L.269156$IRd5.225092@fx10.iad:
>
>> The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> writes:
>>> On Wed, 19 Oct 2022 10:03:39 -0700, Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-10-19 09:29, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha wrote:
>>>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote in
>>>>> news:go60lhte0lb42hvcch4gotr148g7233u5o@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 18 Oct 2022 18:04:37 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott
>>>>>> Lurndal) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha <taustinca@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> writes:
>>>>>>>> scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:bUx3L.585370$Ny99.159304@fx16.iad:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/15/2022 12:14 PM, Ninapenda Jibini wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> news:tid5tu$2fksl$2@dont-email.me:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 4:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <lynnmcguire5@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/14/2022 3:43 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think one can compare Houston to Los Angeles,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> on any metric that matters. At least LA cleaned up
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its air.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You ain't ever been here have you ? I've been to LA
>>>>>>>>>>>> several times. The pollution is always worse than
>>>>>>>>>>>> Houston. Of course, I live outside the third outer
>>>>>>>>>>>> ring which is about 60 miles across.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> LA's air is about as clean as it's been since they
>>>>>>>>>>> started keeping records. The price of that is gasoline
>>>>>>>>>>> that's $2/gallon more than anywhere else in the US
>>>>>>>>>>> (except Hawaii, where it's brought in by ship), and
>>>>>>>>>>> cars that cost thousands more, and the 2nd more
>>>>>>>>>>> business unfriendly business environment in the US (and
>>>>>>>>>>> it rivals New York).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is it worth it ?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, in spades.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just saw a study the other day on how many hours people
>>>>>>>> have to work at minimum wage per week to afford the
>>>>>>>> average one bedroom apparment. In Los Angenes, it was
>>>>>>>> about 100 (per *week*). In San Jose, it's over 140. Per
>>>>>>>> *week*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, there is a shortage of housing (or an excess of
>>>>>>> population depending on what side of the argument you are
>>>>>>> on).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> One cannot attribute that to energy prices, but rather
>>>>>>> zoning and the desirability of California to immigration
>>>>>>> from other states and countries. Fundamentally, the large
>>>>>>> population centers are geographically limited (i.e.
>>>>>>> surrounded by mountains or ocean on all sides), which
>>>>>>> limits the space available.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Add that to developers who much prefer to build luxury
>>>>>>> apartments/homes rather than more affordable flats and
>>>>>>> starter homes, and you get the current situation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mild climate is also attractive for those living rough,
>>>>>>> and when cities like Las Vegas purchase bus tickets to LA
>>>>>>> and SF for their homeless, it doesn't help matters any.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't have good answers on how to address this long term,
>>>>>>> do you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a very nasty problem, with many layers.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And the subject of much whining and local politics on
>>>>>> Nextdoor, at least in my area. It's amazing how many people
>>>>>> believe that no house was ever broken into before the BLM
>>>>>> protests. Or fires deliberately started. Or people mugged.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not as amazing as people who can *watch* the videos of
>>>>> houses, stores, and government offices being broken into,
>>>>> fires started and people assaulted *during* the BLM riots and
>>>>> still call them "protests."
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> They were protests that got out of hand...
>>>>
>>>> ...some times because police deliberately provoked the
>>>> protestors.
>>>
>>> So "mostly peaceful" then? (yeah right)
>>
>> There are three sets of people who usually show up for scheduled
>> protests:
>>
>> - The set of peaceful protestors
>> - The set of anarchists that are attracted to such events
>> - The set of criminals attempting to take advantage of crowds
>>
>> The set of looters is created from a union of the last two sets,
>> with very little membership from the first.
>>
> They were also prevalent enough that in some cities, the police
> were - admittedly - unable to do anything about that. That's not a
> *peaceful* protest, that's an armed insurgency.

Yet another claim for which you will never provide any support...

....let alone proof.

>
> That the current Democrats *approve* of, openly. Including you.

You're a liar.

On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 12:32:07 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter...@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
> >I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
> >200M?) to win.
> (Hal Heydt)
> Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
> fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
> would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.
>
> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
> that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
> this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
> upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
> population recovery might not happen.

He doesn't even have 20 million to muster. Probably under 1/10 that,
realistically.

At the moment, Russia has about 14 million males aged 20-35. The
pool is actually slightly larger, there are about 1.6 million 18 and 19
year olds, and 5% of the Russian armed forces are women.

But without dipping heavily into older age groups, he could not reach
20M. Thats if Every Single Male became a soldier, which won't happen.

https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-military-facing-looming-demography-crisis

It's only going to get worse. Births peaked in 1987, then fell by almost half by 1999. There was
a smaller echo of the 80s boom around 2012, but 10 year olds don't make good soldiers.

Expand the pyramid here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia

Russia's military faces a severe demographic crisis.

The US military is also having trouble meeting quotas, but we're better off demographically.
We just have very low unemployment, and there are better options for most young people.

pt

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 16:23:15 GMT, djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J
Heydt) wrote:

>In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>>200M?) to win.
>
>(Hal Heydt)
>Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
>fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
>would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.

It probably was the lower figure; and, of course, hyperbole might have
been involved if it was the higher one.

>Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
>that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
>this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
>upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>population recovery might not happen.

There would have been some "severe social upheaval" back in the days
when most people were farmers -- who do you think planted and
harvested the crops?

Historically, campaign seasons (and, in the USA, grade school
start/stop dates in rural areas) have been tailored to having the men
back home for the sowing and the reaping.

Losing 28% (only half of that 140M are likely to be male, by any
description, and 20/70 is 2/7) of them would have produced starvation.
And probably would today as well, following a total societal collapse.

Subtract out the under-18 and over-40 crowd and it gets even worse.

But the point was how determined Putin allegedly is, not about
practical considerations.

Then again, Adolf ended up using 13-year-olds and 60-year-olds as
soldiers, and ordering Speer to destroy the German economy (what there
was left of it) so that the nation would not survive it's beloved
Fuehrer.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 17:50:44 GMT, scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) writes:
>>In article <rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com>,
>>Dorothy J Heydt <djheydt@kithrup.com> wrote:
>>>In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>>>Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>>>>200M?) to win.
>>>
>>>(Hal Heydt)
>>>Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
>>>fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
>>>would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.
>>>
>>>Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
>>>that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
>>>this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
>>>upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>>>population recovery might not happen.
>>
>>(Hal Heydt)
>>And, I should add, that stripping out 20M adult males would
>>probably be hard to do whens starting from a base population of
>>140M, or some less.
>
>Not to mention that their military industrial capabilities
>cannot replace the current material losses in less than a
>decade and would have a hard time providing uniforms, weapons,
>ammunition, meals, medical care, aircraft, rockets, missiles, IFV's and MBTs.
>
>They've already lost 10% or more of their total fighter-bomber (SU-34)
>fleet, and a significant fraction of the remaining aren't combat ready;
>they've shot a substantial fraction of their modern missile stocks, leaving
>hit-or-miss legacy soviet missiles as their primary stocks. They're
>buying old soviet arty ammo back from NK and cheap drones from Iran.

And, if I understand this correctly, Iran is shocked! -- shocked!!!!
they tell us -- at the very thought that those drones are being used
to attack Ukraine.

Of course, this is /Iran/ talking -- a nation even less trustworthy
than Putin or Trump. Which is pretty darned untrustworthy.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 11:08:58 -0700, Jibini Kula Tumbili Kujisalimisha
<taustinca@gmail.com> wrote:

>djheydt@kithrup.com (Dorothy J Heydt) wrote in
>news:rK9Mur.1n9u@kithrup.com:
>
>> In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter93fici9a8tkajkct5@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or
>>>was it 200M?) to win.
>>
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that
>> have fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing
>> 20M would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian
>> economy.
>
>There's already storeis being done on the number of men who have been
>drafted (and have a very high chance of never coming home) or have
>fled the country to avoid it. Something over a million have been
>documented.

Men, as I understand it, from non-Russian peoples who decided to
remain part of Russia when the Soviet Union died.

Apparently, one drafting technique is to go into apartment buildings
at 2AM, knock on doors, and give draft notices to any men found
inside.

Hey, at least they aren't being hauled out and shot! Some improvement
has occurred!

>> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M
>> *men* that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly,
>> but in this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe
>> social upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>> population recovery might not happen.
>>
>Take a look at the "social upheave" from China's "one child" policy,
>which produced millions of men who have no chance of ever finding a
>wife.

Natural-born cannon fodder.
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."

On Mon, 24 Oct 2022 12:10:57 -0700 (PDT), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Monday, October 24, 2022 at 12:32:07 PM UTC-4, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <otcdlhdh96if36ter...@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <pspe...@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> >I saw something claiming that Putin was willing to lose 20M (or was it
>> >200M?) to win.
>> (Hal Heydt)
>> Since the population of Russia is about 140M--less those that have
>> fled recently--he doesn't *have* 200M to lose. Even losing 20M
>> would make for a severe adverse impact to the Russian economy.
>>
>> Mind you, from historical observation, so long as it is 20M *men*
>> that die, the population could recover reasonably quickly, but in
>> this day and age, there'd likely be some rather severe social
>> upheaval in the process...and, all things considered, the
>> population recovery might not happen.
>
>He doesn't even have 20 million to muster. Probably under 1/10 that,
>realistically.

The statement I read was more about Putin's determination than
practical matters.

>At the moment, Russia has about 14 million males aged 20-35. The
>pool is actually slightly larger, there are about 1.6 million 18 and 19
>year olds, and 5% of the Russian armed forces are women.
>
>But without dipping heavily into older age groups, he could not reach
>20M. Thats if Every Single Male became a soldier, which won't happen.
>
>https://www.russiamatters.org/analysis/russian-military-facing-looming-demography-crisis
>
>It's only going to get worse. Births peaked in 1987, then fell by almost half by 1999. There was
>a smaller echo of the 80s boom around 2012, but 10 year olds don't make good soldiers.

In two or three years they'll be old enough -- at least, kids that age
were old enough for Adolf in 1945.

>Expand the pyramid here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Russia
>
>Russia's military faces a severe demographic crisis.
>
>The US military is also having trouble meeting quotas, but we're better off demographically.
>We just have very low unemployment, and there are better options for most young people.

And it doesn't help at all that their weight control program
/excludes/ the 2/3 of the country that are overweight.

Thin Army -- fat nation. This nonsense can't go on forever.

And, by now, they've figured out that weight lost in Basic comes right
back on afterwards in far too many cases. So no snickers about
"they'll lose it it Basic".
--
"In this connexion, unquestionably the most significant
development was the disintegration, under Christian
influence, of classical conceptions of the family and
of family right."