Portland, Oregon is full of sustainability advocates who look forward to petrocollapse and “experiment” with such things as country living and learning to live as voluntary peasants. Two such sustainability advocates are trained engineers and have a blog promoting urban gardening and raising chickens as if these were somehow new ideas.
Apparently, these engineers have discovered a new means to sustainability: robbing banks. Police allege they had already robbed two banks and had plans to rob a third when they put up their latest post about pickling beets “found” (quotation marks theirs) in a farmer’s field.
A brief about Titanic K2 capsules These capsules rescue all the males suffering from the problem of erectile dysfunction? Where there is a will, there is a way- is right at levitra online its place. When any partners have sexual disorders or low desire it http://opacc.cv/opacc/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/documentos_provas2015_Enunciado%20da%20Prova%20de%20Exame_2015_23-11-2015.pdf viagra without prescriptions canada may result in decreasing intimacy. These guards should be purchase cheap viagra replaced every 2-4 weeks. Additionally, GAINSWave will give the man a new sense of tadalafil overnight delivery self and a new way of being. Banks are, after all, merely a front for America’s petro-dependent lifestyles, so bringing down the banks will hasten petrocollapse and allow us all to more quickly reach nirvana as involuntary peasants. Or anyway I imagine they justified it in their minds using some similar logic.
Thanks to Bojack for pointing this out.
Those people were really dumb, you don’t rob banks with guns.
If you’re going to rob a bank, first you have to become the CEO, then you rob it from the inside!
JK: Also dumb are people that believe in “petrocollapse”. If they knew a little history or economics or chemistry, they would see that we are not about to run out of oil:
economics (supply goes up with price)
That is why we have recently had a series of dramatic announcements of new discoveries – the recent high oil prices have brought much new exploration which has found more supplies.
chemistry (you can make the stuff)
The Fischer–Tropsch (see fischer-tropsch.org) process and the Bergius process, both used from the 1930s on, make liquid fuels form coal. Methane instead of coal can also be used a starting point. Sasol (http://www.sasol.com/) has been producing commercial quantities of oil from both processes for years.
History (Hitler ran a war on manmade oil).
The Role of Synthetic Fuel In World War II Germany Said this: “The percentage of synthetic fuels compared to the yield from all sources grew from 22 percent to more than 50 percent by 1943″
(airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1981/jul-aug/becker.htm)
Thanks
JK
The Antiplanner wrote:
Apparently, these engineers have discovered a new means to sustainability: robbing banks. Police allege they had already robbed two banks and had plans to rob a third when they put up their latest post about pickling beats “found†(quotation marks theirs) in a farmer’s field.
Aw, they were just diverting operating subsides from those banks to fund their “sustainable” operation, much like Tri-Met diverts resources from non-transit users to keep its rail and bus system running. Though I suppose what Tri-Met does is legal, and what these people were doing is (presumably) illegal.
In light of the above, the disclaimer on their blog is rather amusing, which I repeat here, since that blog is likely to go away pretty soon:
Disclaimer
This is a very standard disclaimer. In plain speech, it says that we aren’t responsible for anything stupid you may do because of something we wrote here. If our society and world weren’t so litigious, we would not need to put such a page on our site because each person would take responsibility for themselves and work things out like reasoning beings. However, that not being the case…
Urban Survivalists, Pam, Stan, and anyone associated with us or this site take no responsibility for any harm, damage or mishap due to any projects or suggestions posted on this site. You engage in any and all of the suggestions and projects on this site at your own risk. Please think clearly and carefully about what you choose to do and keep yourself safe.
Further, some things we suggest here may be illegal in your part of the world. Do a little research before embarking on a project. Check the codes and laws in your area for applicability. We make no guarantees that what we attempt will be legal for everyone.
The Antiplanner also wrote:
Banks are, after, merely a front for America’s petro-dependent lifestyles, so bringing down the banks will hasten petrocollapse and allow us all to more quickly reach nirvana as involuntary peasants.
Apparently SE 47th Ave. & Woodstock Blvd. (location of robbery number one) was not near a rail transit stop.
Nor is NE 42nd and Alberta Court (location of robbery number two) within a reasonable walk of rail transit.
And, come to find out, these crooks were using private automobiles to do their crimes anyway!
Oh well, they won’t be needing a private automobile in prison.
full of sustainability advocates who look forward to petrocollapse and “experiment†with such things as country living and learning to live as voluntary peasants.
When one sees these low-wattage, marginalizing rants on such a consistent basis, the sane people look at policy proposals that land in their inbox and throw them immediately into the recycle bin. One wonders at the goals of think-tanks when they allow such damaging babble to populate the civic discourse.
DS
CPZ, I thought we long ago put to rest these scaredy-cat, irrational, wrong fears about transit stops and crime on this blog? Why do you persist in whimpering your wrong widdle fears when you know they are false? Are you demagogueing for an agenda, purposely spreading fear? Why lie about it? What’s in it for you?
DS
It nice to know all the crime on Portlands east side Max, has nothing to do with Max and the density mandates that followed the Max. In the once nice single family area before the Max was built.
Max may not cause crime, but it seems to attract that type of people, that use the systeem and live in the higher density housing that has been mandated, by Tri-Met and the planners class.
Dan asked (but really asserted):
I thought we long ago put to rest these scaredy-cat, irrational, wrong fears about transit stops and crime on this blog?
Who’s we? Or do you like to refer to yourself as we?
My comments had nothing to do with transit stops per se. My comment was about the mode of transportation that these “sustainability” advocates used to get to and from the scenes of their criminal acts.
Why didn’t they use Portland’s acclaimed rail transit system for getting to and from their bank robberies?
Couldn’t the suspects have selected banks to rob that would have them to maintain a “carfree” and “sustainable” criminal lifestyle?
Why do you persist in whimpering your wrong widdle fears when you know they are false?
No fears here. I was just pointing out that yet again, advocates for “sustainability,” even in Portland, Oregon, need and use the private automobile to get around, that’s all.
Are you demagogueing for an agenda, purposely spreading fear?
No agenda here.
Why lie about it?
Please point out any untruths.
What’s in it for you?
Nothing. But what’s in it for you?
“When one sees these low-wattage, marginalizing rants on such a consistent basis, the sane people look at policy proposals that land in their inbox and throw them immediately into the recycle bin.”
I hate to say it, but Dan makes a good point here (notwithstanding his own low-wattage, marginalizing rants that appear here regularly). The Antiplanner is on solid ground 90% of the time and has particularly strong, difficult to refute points on the cost effectiveness of rail transit and distortive subsidies. But occasionally he posts stuff like this, which may be amusing to those of us who agree with him but is not intellectually innovative, or articles blaming the housing bubble exclusively on growth controls, which are not really logically sound.
I can’t help wishing he would stick with his strengths if for no other reason than to deprive his opponents of ammunition.
When one sees these low-wattage, marginalizing rants on such a consistent basis, the sane people look at policy proposals that land in their inbox and throw them immediately into the recycle bin.
Actually, that “sentence” makes no grammatical or logical sense. But it’s pretty good for Dan.
CPZ:“Why didn’t they use Portland’s acclaimed rail transit system for getting to and from their bank robberies?”
Cameras in trains…running to their stops with bags of money and Halloween costumes in November…lots of other reasons not to rob a bank by foot.
Are you really micro-analyzing this scenario that much?
ws wrote:
Cameras in trains…running to their stops with bags of money and Halloween costumes in November…lots of other reasons not to rob a bank by foot.
Just wondering.
Are you really micro-analyzing this scenario that much?
No, just pointing out that Pam & Stan, as enthusiastic advocates of “sustainability,” ought not to be using private automobiles (even to commit illegal activities like the robberies they are charged with – and presumably the vegetables they stole from a farmer’s field), that’s all.
My comments had nothing to do with transit stops per se. My comment was about the mode of transportation that these “sustainability†advocates used to get to and from the scenes of their criminal acts.
Apologies. Apparently the premise was so ridiculous I couldn’t grasp it.
DS
Allow me to try again.
Over and over again, I see and hear demands for “sustainability” from various groups and persons, who want to limit private automobile use by other people, usually of lesser means than the person or person(s) advocating for “sustainable” lifestyles.
In the specific instance cited by The Antiplanner, the advocates for sustainability were (apparently) not all that wealthy (since they apparently felt a need to commit those bank robberies), but still, they had a need to use several private automobiles, which seems to be inconsistent with calls for “sustainability.”
So in addition to being charged with the bank robberies (and at least not yet found guilty of same), I am of the opinion that they are guilty of hypocrisy.
Compare and contrast with the Antiplanner (who I do not always agree with, but I always listen to and respect – and regard as a friend), who does not rob banks and does not wish to impose his values on others.
Low-rent, standard-template rants about hypocrite hippies driving cars instead of walking barefoot, or hempen-clad dudes with dreads living in houses instead of caves (+ making cuneiform clay tablets for a living) were oh-so-boring yet cutely trite ten years ago. Parroting them in single-finger typing form doesn’t make the trite more cute or more valid. Parroting such drivel does, however, occasionally allow reality-based people to gain insight once in a while.
DS
C. P. Zilliacus said: No fears here. I was just pointing out that yet again, advocates or “sustainability,†even in Portland, Oregon, need and use the private automobile to get around, that’s all.
THWM: Though robbing banks isn’t a normal every day preoccupation.
When one sees these low-wattage, marginalizing rants on such a consistent basis, the sane people look at policy proposals that land in their inbox and throw them immediately into the recycle bin. One wonders at the goals of think-tanks when they allow such damaging babble to populate the civic discourse.
You make it sound as though Randal is constructing a straw man and demolishing it.
Hardly.
The group-think that dominates Portland is generally illiberal and oft-times impractical. There are only so many times when I can
(1) have my nose stuffed in excrement;
(2) be firmly instructed by chirping pipsqueaks in canary-yellow adventure suits that the excrement not only doesn’t stink but is AMAZINGLY WONDERFUL AND FANTASTIC, AND I’M A JERK FOR NOT AGREEING…
…before I start to question the sanity of my fellow citizens as well as my own sanity.
But I liked how you stated your point.
Libertarians have plenty of group think as well as detachment from reality.
Libertarians have plenty of group think as well as detachment from reality.
Highwayman, this may surprise you, but we agree completely. I don’t like it any more than you do when libertarians (which I count myself among, if only by default) spew out ham-fisted cliches or engage in intellectual short-cuts when more complex analyses are called for.
My whole beef with all political parties is that each of them brings their own vicious cycle of internal conflict to the table, i.e. ‘REASON vs. UNREASON.’ I’m fairly certain that, regardless of political party, unreason wins that slugfest far too often.