This blog printed on 100% recycled electrons.
With a mobilization of city resources that big, I'm suprised they didn't blow the sirens while they were at it. Good thing occasional non-lawn-mower Joe Bartmann is safe in Montrose; he might have ended up in jail here.Notice that no such mobilization has yet been mounted to pave South Grant and Madison's other quaint gravel streets. Priorities, anyone?
If 6.1-inch grass is the biggest thing we have to complain about, well, Madison must be just like living in Paradise!
There's nothing more aggravating than to have a neighbor who doesn't take care of their property thus lowering the value of the whole neighborhood.
ReplyDeleteActually, there are a lot of things more aggravating than 6.1-inch grass... like the expectation that we are supposed to expend time and resources to maintain the "perfect" (more like ecologically unsound) lawn. Uncut prairie grass and xeriscaping, anyone?
ReplyDeleteBombs dropping and suicide attacks are also a minor irritation.
ReplyDeleteGet a life.
If an unmowed lawn bothers you so much, go mow it! I'm sure the neighbor would appreciate it. Just maybe, they are having problems of some kind which have kept them from getting it mowed.
ReplyDeleteDRK
If we were stuck with 4 more years of Bush-Cheney...this wouldn't be an issues...we would all be out feeding on our lawns cause that would be the only food any of us could afford...thank you ron reagan rebublican's and your theory of trickle down economics....keep the rich rich and let the rest of us feed of the scraps...
ReplyDeleteThat's right. They have never wanted a level or close to level playing field. Give em the scraps.
ReplyDeleteBeing something of a Reaganite, I'd happily watch you wither away. It's because I'm just an evil child-eating oil-guzzling rich monster. I'd just tell you to shut yer trap but even the economically clueless have the freedom of speech...for now
ReplyDeletenot that I want bush for 4 more years, but whoever wins is not going to be any better and possibly much much worse.
also, more on topic: It is called "property" for a reason. I should be able to grow a field of sunflowers if I want!
ReplyDeleteI had a cool-looking bush growing in my yard a couple of years ago. Then my brother-in-law told me what it was: a Canadian thistle.
ReplyDeleteI cut the thing down, bagged it up, and fed its roots a half gallon of Roundup before it could generate 10,000 replicas of itself all over town.
To me, dandelions are flowers. Canadian thistles are weeds. As for the length of the grass, here in Lead, six inches is short.
Perhaps you're just joking, Phaedrus, but let me check: where did Reagan say he was in favor of small-town America withering away? (Hm... so who's the big-city elitist around here?)
ReplyDeleteKeep after those thistles, everyone! but sunflowers in every yard: what a lovely vision!
phaedrus....we do at least agree this point...
ReplyDelete"not that I want bush for 4 more years, but whoever wins is not going to be any better and possibly much much worse."
We are all doomed to some degree with this next election..to try and quote the the Who...new boss same as the old boss...
Everything is all about special interests on both sides...one is ok with the private choice to choose on abortion but against capital punishment the other is against abortion but in favor of capital punishment....one is supported by big tabacco but against marijuana the other is against big tabacco but tends to think marijuana should be legalized....one says keep the rich rich and we will all be better off and the other says more programs for the poor and more socialism....it is all joke for the most part we are all like lambs to the slaughter....the two party system has done much to ruin our elections and finding someone who truly will think inside or outside of the box and not simply be with the left or the right.
but then again what could I ever know i am just econcomically clueless....and by the way 100%debt free and on pace to retire in 15 years at the age of 45
yours truly,
economically clueless
to EC, I don't think it is truly the special interests or the 2 party system. After all, the country has had both and been fully functional for a very long time. I think it is a symptom of popular complacency and laziness. It just takes an incredible amount of disaffection and anger before this sleeping giant will move and change things (I just hope that movement is in the right direction)
ReplyDeleteCAH: Yes, obviously joking. My reaction to the very tired demonizing the respective ideologies do to each other. ie Reagon's economic position was about screwing the poor.
Oh, I don't think Reagan wanted to screw the poor. People tired of the perception of unnecessarily supporting them, and in defense you can create dependence where it shouldn't exist. At the same time Reagan did create significant homelessness by eliminating funding for people who needed mental treatment. Accountability is essential, but relative to all our strengths. What seems to have occurred by supply side economics is the release of guilt by those willing to exploit our tax base for their own benefit rather than its use for essential public services and the rest be up to individuals. If I were sappy, I would say what's lacking is a sense of belonging people crave and try to make up for by other means.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't go so far to say Reagan created that homelessness problem. That problems roots came from the prior decades long movement of de-institutionalization that the ACLU helped drive. I would agree that funding cuts didn't help, but I'm suspicious of claims that they are to blame either. It wouldn't matter how much funding a program has if the patient is refusing treatment....we have to give them their human dignity after all...
ReplyDeleteAs far as the rest EC, I find the idea that people, even the evil rich ones, are "exploiting" the tax system by wanting to keep more of the money they earn. It is morally dubious to lay claim to other people's money for what a third person considers "essential" Just because something is good doesn't give the government the right to spend my money (or money we haven't yet earned more often) Everyone needs to recognize that what the government has to cut is not fat, it is money spent on good projects it has no right to be involved in.
The founders originally wanted to say we were endowed with the rights to Life, Liberty, and PROPERTY. But decided not to because of the issue of slavery. Not wanting to create something that would make slavery a permanent fixture.