Wednesday, November 16, 2011

We can't ignore the numbers

The peoples of earth have to go somewhere. A lot of people want to live either on Hollister Ranch or settle for groovy Leucadia. I'm not sure that means we should put in condo towers at Hollister. If they did, it would take away part of the motivation for wanting to live on the Ranch.

50 comments:

  1. So, the best we can do is make it illegal to have an abortion under any circumstances, birth control, family planning, sex education and just tell our kids to abstain???
    These are proposed bills that the 'right' people want to make into laws of the land.
    VOTE

    ReplyDelete
  2. Another way is to just have 2 kids. They can replace you and they have not added to the numbers. People who don't have kids yet might want to consider this. If you already have more than 2, you really don't have a right to complain.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Support zero population growth!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tell Latin America about population control - ain't gonna fly hombre. Looks like Nature will have to thin the herd....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whtey ain't the problem. Them herds are thinning already.... It's Latinos, Hindus and Muslims...they believe their religious leaders that tell them to reproduce. Just like war, religion is the root of the population problem

    ReplyDelete
  6. I believe the 'whtey' religious leaders are just as culpable, Jack.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That mom on reality T V with the 20 kids is Ivory white.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That Octamom should have her tubes tied and kids given up for adoption before she ever receives one stick of Welfare. Its not the color or race. Its selfishness, ignorance and a blatant disrespect for mother earth.

    ReplyDelete
  9. how do you feel about the finance director being reimbused $1,200 for an Accouting 101 course?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Accounting 101?! On the job novice training - helps when you're 'involved' with those who are well connected. $$CHA CHING$$$$$

    ReplyDelete
  11. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Gee Dr. Lorri, Why do you want to find out about an accounting class but you do not want to find out if firefighters put citizens' lives at risk?

    ReplyDelete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I already know what I want to know about that subject

    What a strange thing to say. Sounds like, "I'm afraid to investigate that any further".

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. It took all the way from when the first 6 people were on earth until 1830 to reach one billion people on the planet. (I'd go back to when there were only 2 people on earth, but that's too controversial for this blog). No matter how you slice it, that process took somewhere between 6000 years and 14 billion years (and probably longer). The 2nd billion took only 100 years; 1930. The 3rd billion took 30 years; 1960. The 4th billion 15 years; 1974. The 6th billion took 13 years; 1987. The 6th billion took 12 years; 1999. The latest billion took 12 years; 2011. Fortunately, earth can comfortably sustain 16 billion people - unless they change the zoning again for taller condos.

    ReplyDelete
  17. (I'd go back to when there were only 2 people on earth, but that's too controversial for this blog). No matter how you slice it, that process took somewhere between 6000 years and 14 billion years

    Fail.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Winston, I got it. Funny/no fail

    ReplyDelete
  19. Winston,

    that is the best post you've ever done. Hats off. I guess we know whats in store until the Citizens wake up and elect a council like solana beach.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Twisting words is something many on this blog are good at. If you want to know what I mean, ask me"

    How was your quote twisted?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dr. Lorri,

    I respect and honor your history of civic involvement in Encinitas.

    But Muir and Barth agreeing on issues that are both non-controversial and totally outside of the scope of the city council (e.g. that kids shouldn't use designer drugs) is hardly evidence that Muir is not a Jerome Stocks union-developer crony.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  23. That begs the question...
    Will muit support teresa's mayoral appointment?
    No he will not.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Yeah, hopes aren't too high for Teresa getting her belated just deserts when there's 4 tyrants on council.

    ReplyDelete
  25. With that many agains Teresa, they can play good cop, bad cop with one of them to create the illusion of the playfield being more balanced, as though "all she needed was one more vote". Won't be Muir though who votes for Teresa, he's got nuthin to gain from it. But it will probably be one of the two running for council next year if my forcast has any weight. If not, please don't stone me.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I think it frightened Rob.

    Frightened? Certainly disturbed. (How can someone be so dumb?)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Lorri, you have not explained how your stuff has been twisted or even treated unfairly.

    Lorri, I think you have missed the point that many people have clearly made about the wisdom of the council appointing their friend and campaign operative to the council. I personally think the appointment was less problematic than his non-competitive promotion to a high paid fire chief position. That promotion came with millions of dollars of lifetime compensation that the taxpayer pays. Most people I know are upset with Stocks, Bond, and Gaspar for making a choice that caused a wedge. Not Muir. You’ve even said the U.T. was in their pocket, yet even Logan Jenkins wrote that the selection was divisive. Few people have been critical because of Muir’s policy positions because they are only known to his collaborators, which is very awkward for someone in an elected position.

    I asked Muir by email a year ago about the extent of his electioneering for the council. He was not forthcoming. Now I it is clear to me why he wanted to avoid questions about that work. He knew that the public would find it unsavory if the extent of his involvement became well known. You yourself have admitted for years that Muir is a major player behind the scenes. As you are fully aware, your regular meetings with him for years is why many people did not trust you. I’m willing to work with anyone, so I continued trying to work with you.

    Lorri, you have a very close relationship with Muir and have been meeting regularly with him for years. What are his policy positions? The only policy that I think you have regularly spoken of is city attorney contract and term limits. What are Muir’s positions on that? Are you going to take action and ask for term-limits to be agendized by the council? Now, that would be a substantial issue.

    You can answer questions if you are knowledgeable and interested. You have been highly interested and active in seeking knowledge about the firefighter errors. You have not addressed those questions but continue to bring it up and related issues into the conversation. It is not at all clear that you have based your statements on factual information or sensible analysis. I like to base my understanding on source documents. Too many times what the city officers say is incomplete or wrong.

    I did do a records request for Muir’s correspondence with you. You forwarded me some of that correspondence and those email’s indicate that Muir was providing you with information that was privileged if true and incriminating if false. It was the same kind of information that forcefully argued should not be released to private citizens but instead you ran to the press with it. Somehow the city said there was no correspondence. If you sent it to me how could that be true? Did you forge those emails?

    Those correspondences about the administration of the city between a department head and a citizen are public record. Such email have been very important for the public to see how their government operates. Just look at some of the SD and LA examples. If it took more than 2 minutes to look for the email the city has a problem.

    By your post and not turning over those emails as part of the public records request response you did several things. 1) you participated in a violation of the law and 2) you force me to reveal that you forwarded me Muir’s email’s.

    Dr. Lorri I have not posted everything I have worked on much of it is useful later rather than immediately. What have you done with your Sabine records?

    Right now we are working on ERGA and we are pulling from records requests that go back years that were never published.

    ReplyDelete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Lorri,

    You are not a policy maker or doing anything of much significance, so time writing you is a nuisance. As do many, I do not respond to many of your over the top comments. When you go way too far and include personal attacks that are based on incorrect and incomplete facts that totally ignores the great discretion and hesitation I have afforded you (not for you at this point, but for me because I don't think your are willing to be fair and open and it is mostly a waste of time).

    I am also left very concerned for you because you were willing to give Steve the warning that his family's life were being put at risk because of possible retaliation from the fire department and sheriff. Given your close association with Muir that is scary. Gestapo?

    I responded to your post, which I now see you have removed. You apparently realized that your post was over the top too.

    When do you plan on asking the council to put term-limits on the agenda?

    ReplyDelete
  30. KC-I didn't realize that you had already censored me off this blog. Oh well. No worries, censorship is everywhere these days.

    ReplyDelete
  31. NOTE: Dr. Lorri's post, which she removed, made a first reference to nazi gestapo.

    We are happy to post commentary from anybody and have posted many contrary editorials. If you would like to test that offer we would be extremely happy to be involved. Send us an email with your commentary.

    We do have a history of removing patently false comments by request, including, on many occasions, for Jerome Stocks.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Further note: We can't think of any editorial submissions related to the city that we have not posted. We want more people to participate. Successful democracy requires it.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dr. Lorri,

    I am glad you took down your posts with the personal attacks.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Dr. Lorri,

    You throw out personal attacks easily. I sure wish you would give us the facts as easily.

    When are you going to answer the questions? Why don't you care if firefighters put people's lives at risk?

    It can't be you have firefighter clients. You would have violated ethics laws by the type of relationship you have with their boss.

    Why only attacks and no answers?

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  36. I don't think Lorri has answers. She just knows that she supports her multi-millionaire friend. It doesn't matter that all his millions were taken from the pockets of taxpayers.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Frightened? Certainly disturbed. (How can someone be so dumb?)"

    Two questions:
    1. Exactly how long did it take to make 1 billion people on the planet in your opinion?

    2. Exactly how many people were on the planet when that first billion began?

    I didn't put constraints on the equation but left it wide open.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 1. Exactly how long did it take to make 1 billion people on the planet in your opinion?

    2. Exactly how many people were on the planet when that first billion began?


    1. Depending on your definition of people (anatomically modern or behaviorally modern humans?), either ~200,000 or ~50,000 years.

    2. I'm a little fuzzy on the details of pinpointing new species in evolution, but I think the answer is probably one.

    ReplyDelete
  39. A few more questions for Rob.

    "1. Depending on your definition of people (anatomically modern or behaviorally modern humans?), either ~200,000 or ~50,000 years."

    So, if you're correct, I would assume you agree it took 200,000 years to evolve 1 billion live humaniods on the surface, and another 181 years to make 6 billion more who now behave modernly.

    "2. I'm a little fuzzy on the details of pinpointing new species in evolution, but I think the answer is probably one."

    Question 3: So, in your opinion, (all timelines aside) do new species evolve from old species, or suddenly generate from chance events?

    The chances of life spontaneously happening would involve numerous conditions to occur on a lifeless planet requiring ideal conditions and elements beginning with water, oxygen, light, temperature, pressure, sustenance, electrical activity etc (and the proper amounts of each). You probably would agree with (or at least think it's possible) the theory that life here started with ONE event of a living organism that divided into two and kept dividing, resulting in all life existing here today. If so, living organisms are finite, and every living organism right now could be numbered.

    Darwin said two significant things in the 1800's that didn't pan out. One: that you could "breed out" characteristics in animals (dogs) by selecting unique qualities from the parents. i.e. higher tails for show dogs, longer noses etc. What he didn't live to learn was that there were only so many combinations in dog chromosomes possible, and generations down the line dogs would bounce back physically to what they were 14 generations earlier. They never "evolved" as he assumption stated. The other thing he said was that within the next 100 years, the fossil record would show ample missing links between countless species showing a gradual evolution from one to the next. That didn't happen either.

    Question 4: To sustain life there needs to be continued organic nourishment. What then would the first organism feed on if it were the only living thing?

    Question 5: If life began with one organism, and today there are a certain large amount that have been generated, how many organisms exist today compared to 100 years ago? What science is there proving there would be more or less organisms alive now?

    Finally, there are few things less impressive to me than when someone boasts about "modern behavior man". Sure, our knowledge evolves, making better conveniences for ourselves, but what good is all that when few know how to appreciate and nurture each other?

    ReplyDelete
  40. So, in your opinion, (all timelines aside) do new species evolve from old species, or suddenly generate from chance events?

    Both -- random gene mutation in one species creates a new one.

    The chances of life spontaneously happening ... You probably would agree with ... the theory that life here started with ONE event of a living organism that divided into two and kept dividing, resulting in all life existing here today. If so, living organisms are finite, and every living organism right now could be numbered.

    Can't make any sense of this part.

    Darwin said two significant things in the 1800's that didn't pan out. One: that you could "breed out" characteristics in animals ... They never "evolved" as he assumption stated. ... within the next 100 years, the fossil record would show ample missing links between countless species showing a gradual evolution from one to the next. That didn't happen either.

    Even if this was true (it's not), it wouldn't matter -- evolution is a fact that doesn't require every single thing Charles Darwin ever said to be correct.

    What then would the first organism feed on if it were the only living thing? ... If life began with one organism ...

    Abiogenesis does not assert that life began with a single organism.

    Finally, there are few things less impressive to me than when someone boasts about "modern behavior man". Sure, our knowledge evolves, making better conveniences for ourselves, but what good is all that when few know how to appreciate and nurture each other?

    Behavioral modernity refers to developments of human evolution that spurred the origin of language. Surely you recognize this to be a considerable milestone for mankind? Also, stop watching Oprah.

    ReplyDelete
  41. What good is language without compassion?

    ReplyDelete
  42. Just like any other conversation with a fundie. Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  43. I thought it was a question.

    Fundie says, "I can't handle the cognitive dissonance! Quick, change the topic!"

    ReplyDelete
  44. Oh Rob. Do you ever get the feeling no one else is reading this old thread anymore except me and you?

    ReplyDelete
  45. Winston,

    That's not exactly right.

    Matthew 28:20

    ReplyDelete

Thank you for posting on the Leucadia Blog.
Anonymous comments are allowed, after moderator review.
The moderator works at his leisure.