On 1/19/2025 7:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
 ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia. That's why he
likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for stupid
questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an
experienced and licensed engineer who had direct
experience in the subject area. Oh, and Mr Brandt was
factually correct in his criticism.
Can you remind us of the details?
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:28:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
ANYONE can place an entry into
wikipedia. That's why he likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for >>>> stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an experienced and
licensed engineer who had direct experience in the subject area. Oh, and >>> Mr Brandt was factually correct in his criticism.
Can you remind us of the details?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobst_Brandt :-)
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:42:43 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>>> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a >>>>> "feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice columns >>>> Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia. That's why he likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an
experienced and licensed engineer who had direct experience
in the subject area. Oh, and Mr Brandt was factually correct
in his criticism.
Wikipedia can be a good place to begin some research, but I don't
depend on it for anything that I need to be really sure of. I need
several sources independent from each other to be sure. Same with news
media these days.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com> >>>> wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and Biden >>>>>>> and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia. That's why he likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an
experienced and licensed engineer who had direct experience
in the subject area. Oh, and Mr Brandt was factually correct
in his criticism.
On 1/19/2025 9:35 PM, John B. wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 22:28:38 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
ANYONE can place an entry into
wikipedia. That's why he likes it. That way he gets stupid answers for >>>>> stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an experienced and
licensed engineer who had direct experience in the subject area. Oh, and >>>> Mr Brandt was factually correct in his criticism.
Can you remind us of the details?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobst_Brandt :-)
Page shows no reference to his desdromonic edits.
On 1/19/2025 9:28 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 7:42 PM, AMuzi wrote:Their entry for Ducati desdromatic valves was factually incorrect. Mr
On 1/19/2025 5:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
 ANYONE can place an entry into wikipedia. That's why he likes it.
That way he gets stupid answers for stupid questions.
Well, not everyone.
The Wiki propaganda censors blocked Jobst Brandt, an experienced and
licensed engineer who had direct experience in the subject area. Oh,
and Mr Brandt was factually correct in his criticism.
Can you remind us of the details?
Brandt edited the item. His edits were removed and when he protested,
using actual facts, he was banned.
All that in rich detail is or was in RBT archives.
On 1/20/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:
Wiki isn't prone to outright fabrication They much prefer omission.
I happen to have 20 hardbound volumes of an encyclopedia on the shelf
behind me. Trust me, it omits a lot.
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/20/2025 10:23 AM, AMuzi wrote:Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort of related saw that as New York is apparently going to have a congestion charge, some news outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+ years old, and by any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers and made the air cleaner.
Wiki isn't prone to outright fabrication They much prefer omission.
I happen to have 20 hardbound volumes of an encyclopedia on the shelf
behind me. Trust me, it omits a lot.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying to find anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 6:27 AM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
The choice is yours, and rightly so.
I choose to use my actual name and company email address but
there's no reason for you to do that. Choice is good!
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort
of related saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion
charge, some news
outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+
years old, and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers and
made the air
cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying to
find anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
On 1/21/2025 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort of related
saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion charge, some news >>>> outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+ years old,
and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers and made the air >>>> cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying to find anyone
who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
General defense of liberty.
'too many cars'?? Who decides that?
'this car, but not that car' ? Who decides that?
On 1/21/2025 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort
of related saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion
charge, some news
outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+
years old, and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers
and made the air
cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying
to find anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
General defense of liberty.
'too many cars'?? Who decides that?
'this car, but not that car' ? Who decides that?
So, you should be able to go wherever you want to go using
any transportation medium of your choice for free?
That's a bit of a twist on libertarian philosophy.
On 1/21/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/21/2025 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:You're welcome to your opinion and neither you nor I get a
On 1/21/2025 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort
of related saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion
charge, some news
outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+
years old, and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers
and made the air
cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying
to find anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
General defense of liberty.
'too many cars'?? Who decides that?
'this car, but not that car' ? Who decides that?
So, you should be able to go wherever you want to go using
any transportation medium of your choice for free?
That's a bit of a twist on libertarian philosophy.
vote on this.
Aside from general punishment of the citizenry, cabbies now
have a higher break-even every day, deliveries cost more to
all businesses, businesses below 59th Street have less
customer traffic.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
On 1/21/2025 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort
of related saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion
charge, some news
outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+
years old, and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers and
made the air
cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying to
find anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
General defense of liberty.
'too many cars'?? Who decides that?
'this car, but not that car' ? Who decides that?
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in, anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered >>>> to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to
Google.
If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on
the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to >Google.
On 1/21/2025 4:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them. >>>>>> It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It >>>>>> didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart >>>>> as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of >>>>> the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed. >>>>> As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >>>>> management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their >>>>> company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >>>>> "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about >>>>> someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and >>>>> because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja >>>>> News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered >>>>> to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but >>>>> the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to
Google.
If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on
the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Proximity to surveillance devices is a different matter entirely. In
those cases, google knows who I am and what I'm doing without ever
touching a computer. The point is, google knowing your identity is not a >prerequisite to using google.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
[]'s
On 1/21/2025 4:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
    This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact >>>>>> people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them. >>>>>>     It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It >>>>>> didn't work.
    If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet >>>>>> to identify themselves.
    []'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart >>>>> as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of >>>>> the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed. >>>>> As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >>>>> management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their >>>>> company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >>>>> "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about >>>>> someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for >>>>> the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and >>>>> because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja >>>>> News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered >>>>> to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but >>>>> the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
    Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
    And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
    []'s
    PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to
Google.
    If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on
the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Proximity to surveillance devices is a different matter entirely. In
those cases, google knows who I am and what I'm doing without ever
touching a computer. The point is, google knowing your identity is not a prerequisite to using google.
    Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
On 1/21/2025 12:00 PM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 1/21/2025 12:13 PM, AMuzi wrote:You're welcome to your opinion and neither you nor I get a vote on this.
On 1/21/2025 10:46 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/21/2025 10:00 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/21/2025 5:09 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Indeed lots of stuff has to a extent a view point, sort of related >>>>>> saw that
as New York is apparently going to have a congestion charge, some
news
outlets have been looking at London’s which is now 20+ years old, >>>>>> and by
any measure has worked and worked well ie cut numbers and made the >>>>>> air
cleaner.
And the news reports are hilariously biased ie trying to find
anyone who
will say it’s bad!
Roger Merriman
[raises hand] I will.
Why?
General defense of liberty.
'too many cars'?? Who decides that?
'this car, but not that car' ? Who decides that?
So, you should be able to go wherever you want to go using any
transportation medium of your choice for free?
That's a bit of a twist on libertarian philosophy.
Aside from general punishment of the citizenry, cabbies now have a higher break-even every day,
deliveries cost more to all businesses,
businesses below 59th Street have less customer traffic.
On 1/20/2025 7:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 13:17:00 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
There's a little history on the "Talk" page regarding desmodromic
valves. Here's that "Talk" page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Desmodromic_valve#Disputed_section:_Disadvantages
I don't see enough to make a confident judgment.
Jobst knew an awful lot about desmodromic valves which I suppose he
got acquainted with at Porche trying to eliminate valve float. If you
got him talking on the subject you couldn't shut him off. He believed
they were the cure for everything,
I think you have that backwards. I suppose I could be wrong. Andrew can probably clarify.
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 22:27:11 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama and >>>>>>>>> Biden
and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
    Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her >>>>>> in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies as a >>>>>> "feminist".
    Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it >>>>>> ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice
columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry into
wikipedia.
:-)Â Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty before Obama
and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist movement."
Report back, please.
Frank, will you please think for a minute at least before posting? The
feminist movement said that women do not need a man. Throughout
history the most successful people came from a man and woman married.
This push that women don't need men caused divorces for what should
have been nothing more than disagreements and settleable by marriage
counsellors. My divorce was caused by me saying that I ought to punch
my wife in the face when I had no intent to EVER hit a woman. I was
simply trying to impress on her how serous that she was spending our
money on things other than the children or the mortgage.
Now that we are remarried, I just keep my mouth shut and she goes
about doing pretty much the same thing but it is with her money now.
She and her two siblings inherited some oil land in Texas so aside
from other things she gets a monthly income from that.
Obama screwed up society altogether since he was a drug addicted
homosexual prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this
and hid it from the American people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch
filed a Fredpm of Information Act demand to the FBI before that little
bit of information was made public. Do you think that Obama would have
been elected if that were public infomration? He made being different
to normal elevated. And it isn't as if there weren't 10,000 qualified
blacks that were perfectly normal.
<sigh>Â Tom, you're losing track of the conversation again. It's hard to tell if it's accidental through a memory problem, or if its an
intentional effort to sidetrack.
I wasn't actually arguing with your anti-feminist ideas. That's a rabbit
hole I'm choosing to avoid.
Instead, I was challenging your claim that ANYONE can place an entry on Wikipedia. If you post your statement "The United States had very little
real poverty before Obama and Biden and it was largely caused by the
feminist movement", it wouldn't be there more than a few minutes. Why? Because anyone with an IQ above 80 knows it's bullshit.
It would be removed as quickly as would be "Seriously, the earth
actually IS flat!"
On 1/20/2025 9:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 22:27:11 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama and Biden
and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
    Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the
media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she
hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
    Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with
Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and
marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place
an entry into wikipedia.
:-)Â Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama
and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement."
Report back, please.
Frank, will you please think for a minute at least before
posting? The feminist movement said that women do not
need a man. Throughout history the most successful people
came from a man and woman married. This push that women
don't need men caused divorces for what should have been
nothing more than disagreements and settleable by
marriage counsellors. My divorce was caused by me saying
that I ought to punch my wife in the face when I had no
intent to EVER hit a woman. I was simply trying to
impress on her how serous that she was spending our money
on things other than the children or the mortgage.
Now that we are remarried, I just keep my mouth shut and
she goes about doing pretty much the same thing but it is
with her money now. She and her two siblings inherited
some oil land in Texas so aside from other things she
gets a monthly income from that.
Obama screwed up society altogether since he was a drug
addicted homosexual prostitute. The Slime Stream Media
had full proof of this and hid it from the American
people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of
Information Act demand to the FBI before that little bit
of information was made public. Do you think that Obama
would have been elected if that were public infomration?
He made being different to normal elevated. And it isn't
as if there weren't 10,000 qualified blacks that were
perfectly normal.
<sigh>Â Tom, you're losing track of the conversation
again. It's hard to tell if it's accidental through a
memory problem, or if its an intentional effort to sidetrack.
I wasn't actually arguing with your anti-feminist ideas.
That's a rabbit hole I'm choosing to avoid.
Instead, I was challenging your claim that ANYONE can
place an entry on Wikipedia. If you post your statement
"The United States had very little real poverty before
Obama and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement", it wouldn't be there more than a few minutes.
Why? Because anyone with an IQ above 80 knows it's bullshit.
It would be removed as quickly as would be "Seriously, the
earth actually IS flat!"
lol....I just caught "Obama...was a drug addicted homosexual
prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this
and hid it from the American people. It wasn't until
Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of Information Act demand to
the FBI before that little bit of information was made public."
I don't suppose tommy would be so gracious as to supply the
link from Judicial Watch which has proof of Obamas drug
addiction, homosexuality, and prostitution? I mean, if it's
public information n'all.....
On 1/20/2025 9:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 22:27:11 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama and Biden
and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
    Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the
media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she
hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
    Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with
Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and
marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place
an entry into wikipedia.
:-)Â Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama
and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement."
Report back, please.
Frank, will you please think for a minute at least before
posting? The feminist movement said that women do not
need a man. Throughout history the most successful people
came from a man and woman married. This push that women
don't need men caused divorces for what should have been
nothing more than disagreements and settleable by
marriage counsellors. My divorce was caused by me saying
that I ought to punch my wife in the face when I had no
intent to EVER hit a woman. I was simply trying to
impress on her how serous that she was spending our money
on things other than the children or the mortgage.
Now that we are remarried, I just keep my mouth shut and
she goes about doing pretty much the same thing but it is
with her money now. She and her two siblings inherited
some oil land in Texas so aside from other things she
gets a monthly income from that.
Obama screwed up society altogether since he was a drug
addicted homosexual prostitute. The Slime Stream Media
had full proof of this and hid it from the American
people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of
Information Act demand to the FBI before that little bit
of information was made public. Do you think that Obama
would have been elected if that were public infomration?
He made being different to normal elevated. And it isn't
as if there weren't 10,000 qualified blacks that were
perfectly normal.
<sigh>Â Tom, you're losing track of the conversation
again. It's hard to tell if it's accidental through a
memory problem, or if its an intentional effort to sidetrack.
I wasn't actually arguing with your anti-feminist ideas.
That's a rabbit hole I'm choosing to avoid.
Instead, I was challenging your claim that ANYONE can
place an entry on Wikipedia. If you post your statement
"The United States had very little real poverty before
Obama and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement", it wouldn't be there more than a few minutes.
Why? Because anyone with an IQ above 80 knows it's bullshit.
It would be removed as quickly as would be "Seriously, the
earth actually IS flat!"
lol....I just caught "Obama...was a drug addicted homosexual
prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this
and hid it from the American people. It wasn't until
Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of Information Act demand to
the FBI before that little bit of information was made public."
I don't suppose tommy would be so gracious as to supply the
link from Judicial Watch which has proof of Obamas drug
addiction, homosexuality, and prostitution? I mean, if it's
public information n'all.....
On 1/22/2025 5:24 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/20/2025 9:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 22:27:11 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama and Biden
and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the
media put her
in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she
hardly qualifies as a
"feminist".
Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with
Obama, and it
ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and
marriage advice columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place
an entry into wikipedia.
:-) Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty
before Obama
and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement."
Report back, please.
Frank, will you please think for a minute at least before
posting? The feminist movement said that women do not
need a man. Throughout history the most successful people
came from a man and woman married. This push that women
don't need men caused divorces for what should have been
nothing more than disagreements and settleable by
marriage counsellors. My divorce was caused by me saying
that I ought to punch my wife in the face when I had no
intent to EVER hit a woman. I was simply trying to
impress on her how serous that she was spending our money
on things other than the children or the mortgage.
Now that we are remarried, I just keep my mouth shut and
she goes about doing pretty much the same thing but it is
with her money now. She and her two siblings inherited
some oil land in Texas so aside from other things she
gets a monthly income from that.
Obama screwed up society altogether since he was a drug
addicted homosexual prostitute. The Slime Stream Media
had full proof of this and hid it from the American
people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of
Information Act demand to the FBI before that little bit
of information was made public. Do you think that Obama
would have been elected if that were public infomration?
He made being different to normal elevated. And it isn't
as if there weren't 10,000 qualified blacks that were
perfectly normal.
<sigh> Tom, you're losing track of the conversation
again. It's hard to tell if it's accidental through a
memory problem, or if its an intentional effort to sidetrack.
I wasn't actually arguing with your anti-feminist ideas.
That's a rabbit hole I'm choosing to avoid.
Instead, I was challenging your claim that ANYONE can
place an entry on Wikipedia. If you post your statement
"The United States had very little real poverty before
Obama and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist
movement", it wouldn't be there more than a few minutes.
Why? Because anyone with an IQ above 80 knows it's bullshit.
It would be removed as quickly as would be "Seriously, the
earth actually IS flat!"
lol....I just caught "Obama...was a drug addicted homosexual
prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this
and hid it from the American people. It wasn't until
Judicial Watch filed a Fredpm of Information Act demand to
the FBI before that little bit of information was made public."
I don't suppose tommy would be so gracious as to supply the
link from Judicial Watch which has proof of Obamas drug
addiction, homosexuality, and prostitution? I mean, if it's
public information n'all.....
In the morning news is another example of mass hysteria with
a benign simple basis:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/22/us-news/instagram-facebook-users-confounded-by-perceived-auto-follow-for-trump-likely-followed-the-potus-accounts-previously/
On 1/22/2025 5:24 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/20/2025 9:15 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:45 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 22:27:11 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/19/2025 6:33 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Sun Jan 19 08:36:09 2025 zen cycle wrote:
On 1/17/2025 4:19 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 15:50:00 -0500, Zen Cycle
<funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/17/2025 12:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/17/2025 11:35 AM, cyclintom wrote:
:-) Well, THERE'S a novel idea! :-)
The United States had very little real poverty before Obama >>>>>>>>>>> and Biden
and it was largely caused by the feminist movement.
Wait, there was no feminist movement before obama?!?!
    Well, Reagan's wife was a bit outspoken, but the media put her >>>>>>>> in her place. Reagan, cowered as always, so she hardly qualifies >>>>>>>> as a
"feminist".
    Yep, Psyclingtom is right. Feminism stated with Obama, and it >>>>>>>> ruined the economy...
Gee, I must have missed all those cookbooks and marriage advice
columns
Gloria Steinhem and Betty Friedan wrote.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-wave_feminism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second-wave_feminism
There's Flunky using wikipedia again. ANYONE can place an entry
into wikipedia.
:-)Â Tom, give it a try. Go to this page on Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty
and post "The United States had very little real poverty before Obama >>>>> and Biden and it was largely caused by the feminist movement."
Report back, please.
Frank, will you please think for a minute at least before posting?
The feminist movement said that women do not need a man. Throughout
history the most successful people came from a man and woman
married. This push that women don't need men caused divorces for
what should have been nothing more than disagreements and settleable
by marriage counsellors. My divorce was caused by me saying that I
ought to punch my wife in the face when I had no intent to EVER hit
a woman. I was simply trying to impress on her how serous that she
was spending our money on things other than the children or the
mortgage.
Now that we are remarried, I just keep my mouth shut and she goes
about doing pretty much the same thing but it is with her money now.
She and her two siblings inherited some oil land in Texas so aside
from other things she gets a monthly income from that.
Obama screwed up society altogether since he was a drug addicted
homosexual prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this
and hid it from the American people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch
filed a Fredpm of Information Act demand to the FBI before that
little bit of information was made public. Do you think that Obama
would have been elected if that were public infomration? He made
being different to normal elevated. And it isn't as if there weren't
10,000 qualified blacks that were perfectly normal.
<sigh>Â Tom, you're losing track of the conversation again. It's hard
to tell if it's accidental through a memory problem, or if its an
intentional effort to sidetrack.
I wasn't actually arguing with your anti-feminist ideas. That's a
rabbit hole I'm choosing to avoid.
Instead, I was challenging your claim that ANYONE can place an entry
on Wikipedia. If you post your statement "The United States had very
little real poverty before Obama and Biden and it was largely caused
by the feminist movement", it wouldn't be there more than a few
minutes. Why? Because anyone with an IQ above 80 knows it's bullshit.
It would be removed as quickly as would be "Seriously, the earth
actually IS flat!"
lol....I just caught "Obama...was a drug addicted homosexual
prostitute. The Slime Stream Media had full proof of this and hid it
from the American people. It wasn't until Judicial Watch filed a
Fredpm of Information Act demand to the FBI before that little bit of
information was made public."
I don't suppose tommy would be so gracious as to supply the link from
Judicial Watch which has proof of Obamas drug addiction,
homosexuality, and prostitution? I mean, if it's public information
n'all.....
Mr Obama wrote about marijuana and cocaine use in his book:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-i-used-drugs-drank-in-high-school/
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/09/us/politics/09obama.html
The gay sex is probably greatly overstated:
https://www.pride.com/identities/barack-obama
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/obama-gay-love-letter- men-b2406683.html
People do spin great fantasies from small shreds of fact and, at least
for me, utterly irrelevant compared to policy and power errors which
have greater effect. The current emphasis on prurient personal stories
from the past is to our greater loss when we ignore current policy
action IMHO.
On 1/21/2025 4:43 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 16:06:29 -0500, Zen Cycle <funkmaster@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On 1/21/2025 3:36 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 12:18:34 -0800, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> >>>> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them. >>>>>> It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It >>>>>> didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems. >>>>> That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart >>>>> as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of >>>>> the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed. >>>>> As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so >>>>> management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their >>>>> company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to >>>>> "privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about >>>>> someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and >>>>> because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja >>>>> News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered >>>>> to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive. >>>>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but >>>>> the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Meh ... Google bought Dejanews to close down Usenet. The
amount of computational power they use to profile users today is
thousands, maybe millions times larger than what is necessary to keep
those historic records accessible to everyone.
And coincidence, on the 20th January 2025 onwards any citizen
in the World has to identify himself to use Google Search. Trump in,
anonymity out.
[]'s
PS If you type in https://www.google.com and are NOT greeted
with a message that you need to allow invasive scripting, Google
already knows who you are.
That may be the reality in Brasil, but in the US it's entirely possible
to use a publicly shared computer and not have to identify yourself to
Google.
If there are no cellphones near you, or cameras/microphones on
the computer or on the street/in the library/cafe/wherever I suppose
that is possible.
Proximity to surveillance devices is a different matter entirely. In
those cases, google knows who I am and what I'm doing without ever
touching a computer. The point is, google knowing your identity is not a >prerequisite to using google.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
The point is: Google does not know my surfing habits.
On Tue Jan 21 12:18:34 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Well, to my surprise you seem to have exactly explained usenet. I was
in at the very first when it was almost strictly academia and was a resource >for scientific information.
The ENTIRE idea of anonymity was entirely foreign.
We all wanted to know who it was offering information.
This is why I had a hard time accepting anonymity from Flunky since
he can say anything he wants without people checking it.
The expansion into things like political discussions didn't happen for
a long time but when it did the numbers of groups exploded.
Let me approve of your explanation.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 20:43:03 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On Tue Jan 21 12:18:34 2025 Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 09:27:10 -0300, Shadow <Sh@dow.br> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jan 2025 01:06:34 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
Do we need to make the point that you hide your identity
This is Usenet. Usenet was DESIGNED to be anonymous. In fact
people are advised to NEVER post anything that might identify them.
It was the reason why Google spent billions buying the
dejanews archives and then hid them. An attempt to kill Usenet. It
didn't work.
If you really believe in freedom, NEVER ask anyone on Usenet
to identify themselves.
[]'s
That's not the exactly what happened. When the Internet was
contrived, it was essentially an academic research network. Many
systems didn't have password and some prominent users (Richard
Stallman) refused to use passwords on his publicly accessible systems.
That was fine as long as academia ruled the Internet, but fell apart
as companies and corporation started connecting to the Internet.
Management of these companies insisted that nothing company related
would appear on the Internet which included the personal opinions of
the user. Also, no business or financial transactions were allowed.
As the Internet grew, enforcing that became increasingly difficult.
The only way around this was for users to obscure their identities so
management couldn't determine who was writing bad things about their
company management or products. That soon morphed into the right to
"privacy" which really meant that right to post almost anything about
someone on the Internet without fear of retaliation. There were
attempts to prosecute individuals for libel, but that failed badly.
Google didn't buy Deja News because they wanted to suppress free
speech. They bought it because Usenet was growing far too fast for
the founders to be able to store everything (especially binaries) and
because there was no easy way to monetize Usenet News. By 2001, Deja
News was out of money and was forced to shutdown. Google then offered
to rescue Deja News by buying the company and inheriting the archive.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Groups#Google_Groups>
Google had no idea what to do with Deja News. After Google merged
Deja News and Google Groups, it sat essentially dormant as Google
considered various ways of making money from the transaction, but
found nothing. Eventually, web forums, blogs, social media and
specialty sites replaced Google Groups. Usenet is still around, but
the bulk of the users have moved to other services.
Well, to my surprise you seem to have exactly explained usenet. I was
in at the very first when it was almost strictly academia and was a resource >> for scientific information.
Are you claiming you were responsible for Usenet filters? I
find that improbable. Though it is possible. I can imagine how
annoying it would be for someone to keep butting in on high level discussions.
The ENTIRE idea of anonymity was entirely foreign.
Anyone could post anything, under any name. That was by
design.
We all wanted to know who it was offering information.
Which is why it was hard to obtain. Not everyone wanted their
names out there. There could be conflicts with workplace contracts and
even local laws.
This is why I had a hard time accepting anonymity from Flunky since
he can say anything he wants without people checking it.
Most people offer links to check information.
It's always been
this way with "academia". ANY article, unless it's 100% original (do
they exist anymore?) cites references, which are links to other
people's ideas, experiments and results.
The expansion into things like political discussions didn't happen for
a long time but when it did the numbers of groups exploded.
Political discussions went to "anti-social media". It's where
you'll find the expensive propaganda, the brain washing cambridge
analytica and the #FAKE_NEWS.
Most groups in Usenet were and still are technical.
Let me approve of your explanation.
I don't think you understood it.
[]'s
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a >per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of
the vehicle.
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:14:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
    Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh
at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
The point is: Google does not know my surfing habits.
Because you live in the EU and you have some expectation of
privacy? Well, Google has paid billions in fines for ignoring EU laws.
And I assume you're using your real name. As am I. And most people
because we do not want to lie and not be able to have it checked. I
simply don't lie anyway. Of what worth is that?
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 21:09:50 GMT, cyclintom <cyclintom@yahoo.com>
wrote:
And I assume you're using your real name. As am I. And most people
because we do not want to lie and not be able to have it checked. I
simply don't lie anyway.
Jennifer, IAWTP.
[]'s
Am 22.01.2025 um 20:45 schrieb Shadow:
On Wed, 22 Jan 2025 10:14:17 +0100, Rolf Mantel
<news@hartig-mantel.de> wrote:
Whatever I'm doing, I'm doing it right. They often suggest
ladies' shoes for me (I'm a size 12 extra wide). Last week I got a
discount on tampons. Of course, that could just be AI having a laugh >>>>> at my expense.
It's based on your surfing habits. If I were you, I wouldn't say any
more on that issue.
The point is: Google does not know my surfing habits.
Because you live in the EU and you have some expectation of
privacy? Well, Google has paid billions in fines for ignoring EU laws.
Because:
... I use DuckDuckGo instead of Google as a search engine
... I use Firefox as a browser
... I reject all non-necessary cookies
On 1/22/2025 8:00 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Tue Jan 21 12:24:52 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
To me, it seems parallel to a toll road. "You want to drive here? Then
pay to help defray the costs."
It's also parallel to a train ticket or an airline ticket. "Sorry, you
don't get to use the facility for free. We're not going to subsidize it
to that level."
Each car imposes external negatives on others. That's especially true in >>> car-crowded cities. It seems to make sense to reduce those using market
economics.
Frank! Why are you completely unaware of the economics of roads?
I'm not, Tom Why do you think I am?
EVERY taxpayer and that includes you, pays for the construction of
roads in his state of residence.
Yes, that was part of my argument when I was pointing out that like rail transportation, roads don't pay for themselves via tickets, fares, etc.
The roads are constructed and maintained with a combination of state,local and federal taxes!
Of course!
What you are saying is that those who pay more taxes should havepriority use of the roads!
Um, you mean like something as impossible as a toll road? Or some HOV
lanes? Where you are allowed to use the pavement only if you pay? Yes,
I'm saying that's appropriate for some super-congested city centers.
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of
the vehicle.
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a
per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of
the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/a-look-at-
texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates have increased by
more than 160 percent, going from $11 for the full 20-mile round trip
during peak hours to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the government
and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only a third of the cost of >construction, so even that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport should
cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are people who never >drive, and people who drive far more than others. Since the vast
majority of road-related expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes,
why should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each driver, since
that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main determinant of roadway
expenses? After all, train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't need to
track your movements. You'd simply need to submit evidence of your
odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide" should be all in--
favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own benefit. Quite
the opposite! As I've said, my life situation has changed in a way that
makes me driver far more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of
roadway expenses.
On 1/23/2025 9:50 AM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 21:09:32 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/20/2025 7:30 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Mon Jan 20 13:17:00 2025 Frank Krygowski wrote:
There's a little history on the "Talk" page regarding desmodromic
valves. Here's that "Talk" page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Talk:Desmodromic_valve#Disputed_section:_Disadvantages
I don't see enough to make a confident judgment.
Jobst knew an awful lot about desmodromic valves which I suppose he
got acquainted with at Porche trying to eliminate valve float. If
you got him talking on the subject you couldn't shut him off. He
believed they were the cure for everything,
I think you have that backwards. I suppose I could be wrong. Andrew can
probably clarify.
Frank, you are forever forgetting that I knew Jobst.
At ride breaks I
would actually listen to him.
Do you even know what desmodromic valves
mechqanisms are? What can you tell us all about the clearamnces
between the actuation cam and the retraction cam?
Maybe you can get
Andrew to tell us that he knows moew about things than people who were
actually there?
Tell us again that roads are built by gas taxes.
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all
be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe modified
additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/
a-look-at- texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from $11
for the full 20-mile round trip during peak hours to $29
dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the
government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only
a third of the cost of construction, so even that "private"
toll road was heavily subsidized by taxpayers. I'm pointing
this out to those who say rail transport should cover all
its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more than
others. Since the vast majority of road-related expenses are
_not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why should a non-driver pay
the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each
driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main
determinant of roadway expenses? After all, train fares are
strongly affected by the the rider's travel distance - IOW
the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't
need to track your movements. You'd simply need to submit
evidence of your odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own
benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life situation
has changed in a way that makes me driver far more annual
miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing it in an EV. I'm
pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of roadway
expenses.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:10:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a >>>> per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of
the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/a-look-at-
texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates have increased by >>> more than 160 percent, going from $11 for the full 20-mile round trip
during peak hours to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the government
and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so even that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport should
cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are people who never
drive, and people who drive far more than others. Since the vast
majority of road-related expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes,
why should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each driver, since
that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main determinant of roadway
expenses? After all, train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't need to
track your movements. You'd simply need to submit evidence of your
odometer total once per year.
That wouldn't work. Too many crooks around.
First think people do when they buy a new car in Brazil is to
ask the dealer to disconnect the odometer. So they can sell it years
later with "very low mileage".
[]'s
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide" should be all in
favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own benefit. Quite
the opposite! As I've said, my life situation has changed in a way that
makes me driver far more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of
roadway expenses.
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a
per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of
the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/a-look-at-
texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates have increased by
more than 160 percent, going from $11 for the full 20-mile round trip
during peak hours to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the government
and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only a third of the cost of >construction, so even that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport should
cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are people who never >drive, and people who drive far more than others. Since the vast
majority of road-related expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes,
why should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each driver, since
that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main determinant of roadway
expenses? After all, train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't need to
track your movements. You'd simply need to submit evidence of your
odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide" should be all in
favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own benefit. Quite
the opposite! As I've said, my life situation has changed in a way that
makes me driver far more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of
roadway expenses.
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe modified
additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look-at- texas-private-toll-
roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from $11
for the full 20-mile round trip during peak hours to $29
dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the
government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid
only a third of the cost of construction, so even that
"private" toll road was heavily subsidized by taxpayers.
I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport
should cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more than
others. Since the vast majority of road-related expenses
are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why should a non-
driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each
driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main
determinant of roadway expenses? After all, train fares
are strongly affected by the the rider's travel distance -
IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply need
to submit evidence of your odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own
benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life
situation has changed in a way that makes me driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing it
in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share"
of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not a
technical issue.
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a
markup.
On 1/23/2025 12:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:10:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a >>>>> per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of >>>>> the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/a-look-at-
texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates have increased by >>>> more than 160 percent, going from $11 for the full 20-mile round trip
during peak hours to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the government
and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so even that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >>> taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport should
cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are people who never
drive, and people who drive far more than others. Since the vast
majority of road-related expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes,
why should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each driver, since >>> that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main determinant of roadway
expenses? After all, train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't need to
track your movements. You'd simply need to submit evidence of your
odometer total once per year.
That wouldn't work. Too many crooks around.
First think people do when they buy a new car in Brazil is to
ask the dealer to disconnect the odometer. So they can sell it years
later with "very low mileage".
[]'s
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide" should be all in
favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own benefit. Quite
the opposite! As I've said, my life situation has changed in a way that
makes me driver far more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of
roadway expenses.
And reversing odometer mileage is a widespread and creative
industry here as well.
p.s. The sloppy ones get arrested and charged. The smarter
ones are doing the same thing, better, at this moment:
https://www.wmtv15news.com/2023/12/05/almost-1k-car-wholesalers-operating-out-one-arlington-building-prompt-potential-law-change/
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:42:41 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:59 PM, Shadow wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:10:06 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all be on such a >>>>>> per-mile-driven system, maybe modified additionally for the weight of >>>>>> the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/a-look-at- >>>>> texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates have increased by >>>>> more than 160 percent, going from $11 for the full 20-mile round trip >>>>> during peak hours to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the government
and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only a third of the cost of >>>> construction, so even that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >>>> taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail transport should >>>> cover all its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are people who never >>>> drive, and people who drive far more than others. Since the vast
majority of road-related expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, >>>> why should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each driver, since >>>> that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main determinant of roadway
expenses? After all, train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't need to
track your movements. You'd simply need to submit evidence of your
odometer total once per year.
That wouldn't work. Too many crooks around.
First think people do when they buy a new car in Brazil is to
ask the dealer to disconnect the odometer. So they can sell it years
later with "very low mileage".
[]'s
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide" should be all in >>>> favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own benefit. Quite >>>> the opposite! As I've said, my life situation has changed in a way that >>>> makes me driver far more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of
roadway expenses.
And reversing odometer mileage is a widespread and creative
industry here as well.
p.s. The sloppy ones get arrested and charged. The smarter
ones are doing the same thing, better, at this moment:
https://www.wmtv15news.com/2023/12/05/almost-1k-car-wholesalers-operating-out-one-arlington-building-prompt-potential-law-change/
However thay do it, and it's likely they will, it will be very
expensive for the drivers and the government. Perhaps a sealed GPS
unit that broadcasts it's readings and functionality at lots of
undisclosed locations and alarms "authorities" whenever a car passes
that isn't functioning accurately. I'm sure it will still be regularly defeated.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
And reversing odometer mileage is a widespread and creative
industry here as well.
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe modified
additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look-at- texas-private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from $11
for the full 20-mile round trip during peak hours to $29
dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why should
a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is a
main determinant of roadway expenses? After all, train
fares are strongly affected by the the rider's travel
distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply need
to submit evidence of your odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own
benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life
situation has changed in a way that makes me driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not a
technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a scheme!
So yes, like many things, it's a political issue. Everybody
wants better services but they don't want to pay for them.
(Our classic example here is better law enforcement and more
prisons, magically paid for by "No new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear the
non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of shared
infrastructure.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet goals,
never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 13:38:28 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should all
be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe modified
additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/investigations/2024/10/23/
a-look-at- texas-private-toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from $11
for the full 20-mile round trip during peak hours to $29
dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between the
government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG paid only
a third of the cost of construction, so even that "private"
toll road was heavily subsidized by taxpayers. I'm pointing
this out to those who say rail transport should cover all
its expenses via fares, with zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more than
others. Since the vast majority of road-related expenses are
_not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why should a non-driver pay
the same road taxes as a mega-driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by each
driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is a main
determinant of roadway expenses? After all, train fares are
strongly affected by the the rider's travel distance - IOW
the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government wouldn't
need to track your movements. You'd simply need to submit
evidence of your odometer total once per year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my own
benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life situation
has changed in a way that makes me driver far more annual
miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing it in an EV. I'm
pretty sure I'm paying less than "my share" of roadway
expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not a
technical issue.
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a markup.
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads to aid you
the caller?
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life
situation has changed in a way that makes me driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student performance.
Deal?  ;-)
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
On 1/23/2025 8:36 PM, AMuzi wrote:
OK, water utilities are another parallel.
Water utilities may be a private concession or a public
utility. Either way, funding is local and normally by a
separate bill based on usage.
My water bill is split into a certain fixed amount (paying
for infrastructure, I assume) and a certain amount per cubic
foot of usage.
The current system for road fees has far, far too low a cost
per mile on "usage."
That "usage" part is usually done only by the "gas tax"
which hasn't been raised for a long time. Federal gas tax is
about half of what it was in the early '90s, in constant
dollars.
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an >entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 03:19:49 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
History shows that a long time ago people did ride trains, in large
numbers and now they don't. So the first question is "why". In my
little home town people used to take the train to Boston do some
shopping and then train back on Sunday night. About 200 miles one way.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life
situation has changed in a way that makes me driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take his "skill
level" test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking the test, accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He took it again and
got every question correct.
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 03:19:49 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
History shows that a long time ago people did ride trains, in large
numbers and now they don't. So the first question is "why". In my
little home town people used to take the train to Boston do some
shopping and then train back on Sunday night. About 200 mikes one way.
Years later when I came home on leave I asked someone why nobody rode
the train to Boston any more and they replied, ""Why ride the train...
just drive the car."
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
Not quite HGV cause much more frequent maintenance, and will require shallower grades and curves, and in general require the road to be tailed
to them, the Heads of the Valley road in Wales they have spent over a
billion and this is for Trucks benefit so they don’t need to slow, and some shaping of the road profile still has to climb the 1000ft or so up but
trying to keep the grade sub 10%
Cars etc this wasn’t a issue, it was trucks that cooked their brakes on way down, seeing them on fire in the sand pit escape lane be that just the
brakes or the entire truck wasn’t that uncommon at school.
Likewise some of the other roads in the area before sat nav’s and truck ones, have over the years had coaches or lorries that have come a cropper
due to being unsuitable for the roads being unable to cope with either/or both the grade or the turns.
HGV very much needs a particular type of road. Now UK/EU trucks tend to be bit shorter and with bit more powerful engines and so on, the max weight is the same around 40t as they will need to cope with tighter spaces and generally hillier terrain.
US train networks seems to be almost entirely a slow speed freight lines
that the passengers trains fit to their schedules and cope with lines maintained to their standards hence the slow speeds lot of the trains could be traveling quite a lot faster, ie it’s not given anything like the government subsidies that road is.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
On 1/24/2025 8:08 AM, Roger Merriman wrote:
Catrike Ryder <Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:54:37 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:42 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:33 PM, John B. wrote:
And who pays the road tax if you call the police? Or the
water works,
or the fire department, all of which need to use the roads
to aid you
the caller?
I'm not saying non-drivers should pay zero for the roads.
But they do pay, as Andrew said, in property taxes, sales
taxes, and even the price of goods, since companies build
transport costs into that price.
I'm simply saying more of the burden should be on those who
make more use of the roads.
I think railroads are a close parallel to highways. Andrew
says, in essence, we should all pay for roads because we all
use goods delivered by roads. I can agree with that concept.
But it also applies to railroads. We all use commodities
delivered by rail.
Our difference is that the car fans here want no further
expenses on those who use cars on those same roads. In
practice, they want to drive with no fares, to have their
driving subsidized. But they don't want to subsidize train
fares, even though that's a perfectly parallel situation.
And they don't want to pay congestion charges in super-
crowded cities. They just want the city residents to deal
with their presence, their contribution to congestion,
pollution, etc.
Some important differences there.
Governments do not own or maintain track (outside of local
urban systems such as MTA or CTA or BART).
The only intercity passenger rail is Amtrak, which is an
entertainment/display system, not a functional
transportation system. It's not anywhere near competitive on
travel times, reliability or price. And Amtrak does not own
or maintain railbed AFAIK.
There's also big differences in how highways and railroads share
freight travel and passnger travel facilities. Are rail passengers
going to be Ok with freight train speeds and the switching delays? I
suspect lots of special facilities would be required for high speed
passenger trains whereas cars and trucks get along with each other
just fine on highways.
Not quite HGV cause much more frequent maintenance, and will require
shallower grades and curves, and in general require the road to be tailed
to them, the Heads of the Valley road in Wales they have spent over a
billion and this is for Trucks benefit so they don’t need to slow, and some
shaping of the road profile still has to climb the 1000ft or so up but
trying to keep the grade sub 10%
Cars etc this wasn’t a issue, it was trucks that cooked their brakes on way
down, seeing them on fire in the sand pit escape lane be that just the
brakes or the entire truck wasn’t that uncommon at school.
Likewise some of the other roads in the area before sat nav’s and truck
ones, have over the years had coaches or lorries that have come a cropper
due to being unsuitable for the roads being unable to cope with either/or
both the grade or the turns.
HGV very much needs a particular type of road. Now UK/EU trucks tend to be >> bit shorter and with bit more powerful engines and so on, the max weight is >> the same around 40t as they will need to cope with tighter spaces and
generally hillier terrain.
US train networks seems to be almost entirely a slow speed freight lines
that the passengers trains fit to their schedules and cope with lines
maintained to their standards hence the slow speeds lot of the trains could >> be traveling quite a lot faster, ie it’s not given anything like the
government subsidies that road is.
Roger Merriman
--
C'est bon
Soloman
In fairness, basic layout and design protocols of UK
M-roads, US Interstate system, Germany's Autobahns all
derive from the original Autostrada. The engineering/design
standards are for efficiency and safety of all vehicles,
particularly for autos. Any benefit to large cargo trucks is
incidental; merely a subset of the basic design.
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my life
situation has changed in a way that makes me driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles still
consume myriad products all of which are transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student performance.
Deal? ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take his "skill
level" test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had covered during >>>> my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He took it again and >>>> got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going further would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more complaints
here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job prospects. I'm
also sure that men who can't get jobs are more likely than others to
turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations notes); or as
in the case of the illiterate girl, having parents who speak no English, >hamper a child's learning while at home. And I'm sure that the home >environment is critical for learning. If a kid's home life is
desperately bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
On 1/24/2025 12:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
The question remains: What do you propose?
On 1/24/2025 12:01 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't helped much so
far either.
The question remains: What do you propose?
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 22:05:00 -0500, Frank Krygowski
<frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paid only a third of the cost of construction, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than others. Since the vast majority of road-related >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government >>>>>>>>>>>>>> motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a >>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to >>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law >>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No >>>>>>>>>>>>> new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck >>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in >>>>>>>>>>>>> principle, their total tax burden should be less, since >>>>>>>>>>>>> those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-drivers >>>>>>>>>>>>> the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear >>>>>>>>>>>>> the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less. >>>>>>>>>>>
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at >>>>>>>>>>>> $30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal? ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level" test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although growing up in >>>> a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking Italian at home and
throughout their neighborhoods (in their respective cities) and learned
English when starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the education
racket dwarfs all other local budget items combined. Results diminish
as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a priori argument
or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-expenditures-per-
pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof glass, armed >>security guards...
My father started school in a one room "school house"with one teacher >handling all grades, paid for by the parents of the students. It
wasn't until they "moved to town" that he got to go to "public
school".
In spite of all this he had no problem qualifying for collage,
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-
related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway
used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After
all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument
for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for
by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile'
truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never
meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people
who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-
year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although
growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when starting
school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the
education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof
glass, armed security guards...
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-
related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway
used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After
all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument
for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for
by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile'
truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never
meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people
who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-
year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although
growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when starting
school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the
education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof
glass, armed security guards...
On 1/25/2025 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road
taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system,
maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-
tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020,
toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during
peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those
who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of
road- related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline
taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes
as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of
roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses?
After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this
argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've
said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before,
and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a
political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid
for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor
vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last
mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every
purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the
cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong
way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished,
never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are
relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own
egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very
familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst
public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-
school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to
take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my
people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of
the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which
I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake
the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the
9- year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an
arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4
through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-
relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many
more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's
job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is
desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English
although growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when
starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that
the education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors,
bulletproof glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between the
2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show employment
in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff members
between December of the 2019-2020 school year and December
of the current 2023-2024 school year. That’s a 15%
increase in full-time staff members amidst a 9% decrease
in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-
employs-5500-more- staff-members-for-32000-fewer-students-
during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High School
for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building can hold
over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass as
inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean 31
staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All that
money and all that potential staff attention, yet it
failed to produce even a single student who was proficient
in either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-
fails-to-turn-68k- per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
I agree, that sounds bad. But that situation must be
unusual. It can't be enough to account for the huge increase
shown in your Statista site.
FWIW, although it's a somewhat separate issue, I firmly
believe that university administration size has grown out of
control. But locally I'm not seeing the same thing for
public schools.
And I'll note that locally, charter schools have shown worse
results than public schools, last I looked. For a while that
was a big scandal in Ohio, especially since the state's
funding schemes effectively charge public schools for each
student who changes to a charter school.
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the
vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-
related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway
used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After
all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument
for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for
by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile'
truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished, never
meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal? ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level" test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people
who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-
year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although
growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when starting
school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the
education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof
glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between the
2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show employment
in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff members
between December of the 2019-2020 school year and December
of the current 2023-2024 school year. That’s a 15% increase
in full-time staff members amidst a 9% decrease in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-employs-5500-more-staff-members-for-32000-fewer-students-during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High School
for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building can hold
over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass as
inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean 31
staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All that
money and all that potential staff attention, yet it failed
to produce even a single student who was proficient in
either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-fails-to-turn-68k-per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 08:01:36 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of construction, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of road-
related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway
used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After
all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument
for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political >>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for
by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile'
truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>> shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by >>>>>>>>>>>>> being
taxed for things which never get finished, never
meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively >>>>>>>>>>>>> high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious >>>>>>>>>>>>> examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people
who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9-
year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although
growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when starting
school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the
education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof
glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between the
2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show employment
in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff members
between December of the 2019-2020 school year and December
of the current 2023-2024 school year. That’s a 15% increase
in full-time staff members amidst a 9% decrease in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-employs-5500-more-staff-members-for-32000-fewer-students-during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High School
for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building can hold
over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass as
inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean 31
staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All that
money and all that potential staff attention, yet it failed
to produce even a single student who was proficient in
either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-fails-to-turn-68k-per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
And one can say that the Teacher's Union is doing a great job ----
protecting it's members,
Right. The general trends are national, but specific States
and school districts do vary wildly.
And yes, definition of 'charter school' and corrosive
funding, regulation, testing vary as much. Nothing
inherently holy about 'charters' per se, although some are
very good.
(see also electricity which has risen in price dramatically
but only a few States such as Ohio and Illinois bothered to
indict their corrupt officials. The others get a pass)
And although I'm more familiar with CPS, Baltimore is
generally considered the nation's worst among medium/large
cities.
--
Andrew Muzi
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:02:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:54:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Right. The general trends are national, but specific States
and school districts do vary wildly.
And yes, definition of 'charter school' and corrosive
funding, regulation, testing vary as much. Nothing
inherently holy about 'charters' per se, although some are
very good.
(see also electricity which has risen in price dramatically
but only a few States such as Ohio and Illinois bothered to
indict their corrupt officials. The others get a pass)
And although I'm more familiar with CPS, Baltimore is
generally considered the nation's worst among medium/large
cities.
--
Andrew Muzi
for those who believe in "studies."
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/charter-schools-are-outperforming-traditional-public-schools-6-takeaways-from-a-new-study/2023/06
I read the study and, to me at least, it is rather confusing in that
it refers to"days" to value the schools. Does that mean that one
school is open for more days then the other? One school assigns more
home work then another? ????
On 1/27/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/27/2025 6:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:02:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:54:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
Right. The general trends are national, but specific States
and school districts do vary wildly.
And yes, definition of 'charter school' and corrosive
funding, regulation, testing vary as much. Nothing
inherently holy about 'charters' per se, although some are
very good.
(see also electricity which has risen in price dramatically
but only a few States such as Ohio and Illinois bothered to
indict their corrupt officials. The others get a pass)
And although I'm more familiar with CPS, Baltimore is
generally considered the nation's worst among medium/large
cities.
--
Andrew Muzi
for those who believe in "studies."
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/charter-schools-are-
outperforming-traditional-public-schools-6-takeaways-from-a-new-
study/2023/06
I read the study and, to me at least, it is rather confusing in that
it refers to"days" to value the schools. Does that mean that one
school is open for more days then the other? One school assigns more
home work then another? ????
Saw that. One of those metrics only a myopic factotum in some insular
subset of an industry would dream up.
SAT scores, anyone?
Earnings five years out?
Charter schools are mostly elementary schools. SAT scores won't be
available for maybe a decade. Earnings five years out will take even
longer. So to do any good now, you need a metric that evaluates current
data - such as "A kid in 3rd grade should know this much by this date."
There are many other metrics which would be useful to parents and
taxpayers for meaningful evaluation.
"Ohio charter schools saw the largest drop in learning days in math,
losing 37 [school] days compared with traditional public schools." IOW,
kids in Ohio charter schools were almost two months behind.
I'm sure that some charter schools are good. One problem with studies
like this is the self-selection effect. Remember that in _Freakonomics_ Levitt found that it didn't matter whether kids were lucky enough to get
into under-capacity "magnet" schools by lottery. What mattered was
whether the parents cared enough about the kids' education to _try_ to
get them into those schools. Kids whose parents applied, but lost the lottery, did as well as kids in the fancy schools.
On 1/27/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/27/2025 6:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:02:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:54:16 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
Right. The general trends are national, but specific
States
and school districts do vary wildly.
And yes, definition of 'charter school' and corrosive
funding, regulation, testing vary as much. Nothing
inherently holy about 'charters' per se, although some are
very good.
(see also electricity which has risen in price
dramatically
but only a few States such as Ohio and Illinois
bothered to
indict their corrupt officials. The others get a pass)
And although I'm more familiar with CPS, Baltimore is
generally considered the nation's worst among medium/large
cities.
--
Andrew Muzi
for those who believe in "studies."
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/charter-schools-
are- outperforming-traditional-public-schools-6-
takeaways-from-a-new- study/2023/06
I read the study and, to me at least, it is rather
confusing in that
it refers to"days" to value the schools. Does that mean
that one
school is open for more days then the other? One school
assigns more
home work then another? ????
Saw that. One of those metrics only a myopic factotum in
some insular subset of an industry would dream up.
SAT scores, anyone?
Earnings five years out?
Charter schools are mostly elementary schools. SAT scores
won't be available for maybe a decade. Earnings five years
out will take even longer. So to do any good now, you need a
metric that evaluates current data - such as "A kid in 3rd
grade should know this much by this date."
There are many other metrics which would be useful to
parents and taxpayers for meaningful evaluation.
"Ohio charter schools saw the largest drop in learning days
in math, losing 37 [school] days compared with traditional
public schools." IOW, kids in Ohio charter schools were
almost two months behind.
I'm sure that some charter schools are good. One problem
with studies like this is the self-selection effect.
Remember that in _Freakonomics_ Levitt found that it didn't
matter whether kids were lucky enough to get into under-
capacity "magnet" schools by lottery. What mattered was
whether the parents cared enough about the kids' education
to _try_ to get them into those schools. Kids whose parents
applied, but lost the lottery, did as well as kids in the
fancy schools.
On 1/27/2025 9:14 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/27/2025 6:29 AM, John B. wrote:
On Mon, 27 Jan 2025 06:02:55 -0500, Catrike Ryder
<Soloman@old.bikers.org> wrote:
On Sat, 25 Jan 2025 13:54:16 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote: >>>>
Right. The general trends are national, but specific States
and school districts do vary wildly.
And yes, definition of 'charter school' and corrosive
funding, regulation, testing vary as much. Nothing
inherently holy about 'charters' per se, although some are
very good.
(see also electricity which has risen in price dramatically
but only a few States such as Ohio and Illinois bothered to
indict their corrupt officials. The others get a pass)
And although I'm more familiar with CPS, Baltimore is
generally considered the nation's worst among medium/large
cities.
--
Andrew Muzi
for those who believe in "studies."
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/charter-schools-are-
outperforming-traditional-public-schools-6-takeaways-from-a-new-
study/2023/06
I read the study and, to me at least, it is rather confusing in that
it refers to"days" to value the schools. Does that mean that one
school is open for more days then the other? One school assigns more
home work then another? ????
Saw that. One of those metrics only a myopic factotum in some insular
subset of an industry would dream up.
SAT scores, anyone?
Earnings five years out?
Charter schools are mostly elementary schools. SAT scores won't be
available for maybe a decade. Earnings five years out will take even
longer. So to do any good now, you need a metric that evaluates current
data - such as "A kid in 3rd grade should know this much by this date."
There are many other metrics which would be useful to parents and
taxpayers for meaningful evaluation.
"Ohio charter schools saw the largest drop in learning days in math,
losing 37 [school] days compared with traditional public schools." IOW,
kids in Ohio charter schools were almost two months behind.
I'm sure that some charter schools are good. One problem with studies
like this is the self-selection effect. Remember that in _Freakonomics_ Levitt found that it didn't matter whether kids were lucky enough to get
into under-capacity "magnet" schools by lottery. What mattered was
whether the parents cared enough about the kids' education to _try_ to
get them into those schools. Kids whose parents applied, but lost the lottery, did as well as kids in the fancy schools.
On 1/25/2025 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road
taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system,
maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well:
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-
tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020,
toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent,
going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip during
peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the government and BTG corporation. But note
that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those
who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses via
fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes:
There
are
people who never drive, and people who drive
far more
than others. Since the vast majority of
road- related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline
taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road taxes
as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of
roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses?
After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the the
rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd
simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this
argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've
said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me
driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before,
and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less
than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike
such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a
political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't
want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid
for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor
vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last
mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every
purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now.
But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non-
drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the
cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should
pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong
way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished,
never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are
relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own
egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very
familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst
public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-
school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to
take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my
people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of
the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from
taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which
I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to
answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake
the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the
9- year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an
arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4
through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-
relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the
problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many
more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's
job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is
desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't
help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English
although growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when
starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that
the education racket dwarfs all other local budget items
combined. Results diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures-per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors,
bulletproof glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between the
2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show employment
in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff members
between December of the 2019-2020 school year and December
of the current 2023-2024 school year. That’s a 15%
increase in full-time staff members amidst a 9% decrease
in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-
employs-5500-more- staff-members-for-32000-fewer-students-
during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High School
for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building can hold
over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass as
inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean 31
staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All that
money and all that potential staff attention, yet it
failed to produce even a single student who was proficient
in either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-
fails-to-turn-68k- per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
I agree, that sounds bad. But that situation must be
unusual. It can't be enough to account for the huge increase
shown in your Statista site.
FWIW, although it's a somewhat separate issue, I firmly
believe that university administration size has grown out of
control. But locally I'm not seeing the same thing for
public schools.
And I'll note that locally, charter schools have shown worse
results than public schools, last I looked. For a while that
was a big scandal in Ohio, especially since the state's
funding schemes effectively charge public schools for each
student who changes to a charter school.
On 1/30/2025 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/25/2025 11:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2025 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at-
texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-
tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November
2020, toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip
during peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad
agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But
note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those
who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses
via fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road
taxes: There
are
people who never drive, and people who
drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of
road- related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline
taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road
taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of
roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses?
After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the
the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track
used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements.
You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer
total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the
market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this
argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've
said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before,
and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying
less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would
dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a
political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they
don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid
for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor
vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last
mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every
purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way,
through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do
now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads
would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge
non- drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the
cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less
should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong
way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished,
never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are
relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own
egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle
paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on
non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very
familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst
public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-
school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was
much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off
to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my
people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many
of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back
from taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions,
which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the
least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him
to answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to
retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I
asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they
agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during
the 9- year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an
arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4
through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were
arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-
relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears,
the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read
many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers
one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get
jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the
citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl,
having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's
learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home
environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is
desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers
won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English
although growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when
starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that
the education racket dwarfs all other local budget
items combined. Results diminish as the expenditures
rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures- per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors,
bulletproof glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between
the 2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show
employment in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff
members between December of the 2019-2020 school year
and December of the current 2023-2024 school year.
That’s a 15% increase in full-time staff members amidst
a 9% decrease in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-
employs-5500- more- staff-members-for-32000-fewer-
students- during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High
School for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building
can hold over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass
as inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean
31 staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All
that money and all that potential staff attention, yet
it failed to produce even a single student who was
proficient in either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-
fails-to- turn-68k- per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
I agree, that sounds bad. But that situation must be
unusual. It can't be enough to account for the huge
increase shown in your Statista site.
FWIW, although it's a somewhat separate issue, I firmly
believe that university administration size has grown out
of control. But locally I'm not seeing the same thing for
public schools.
And I'll note that locally, charter schools have shown
worse results than public schools, last I looked. For a
while that was a big scandal in Ohio, especially since
the state's funding schemes effectively charge public
schools for each student who changes to a charter school.
Late follow up, but this is in the morning news today:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/opinion/american-education-
facing-an- undeclared-emergency-with-some-scores-
reaching-30-year-lows/
Right wing opinion duly noted.
How about some facts?
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-01-29/massachusetts- student-test-scores-take-top-spot
On 1/25/2025 11:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2025 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In fact, I think if we could do so, road taxes >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, maybe >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at- texas- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas- tollway-288- >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November 2020, toll >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, going from >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> $11 for the full 20- mile round trip during peak >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad agreement >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> between
the government and BTG corporation. But note that BTG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paid only a third of the cost of construction, so >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even
that "private" toll road was heavily subsidized by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those who say >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> rail
transport should cover all its expenses via fares, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road taxes: There >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are
people who never drive, and people who drive far more >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> than others. Since the vast majority of road- related >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline taxes, why >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> should a non-driver pay the same road taxes as a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of roadway used by >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> each driver, since that (as well as vehicle
weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses? After all, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> train fares are strongly affected by the the rider's >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> travel distance - IOW the amount of track used. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wouldn't need to track your movements. You'd simply >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to submit evidence of your odometer total >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the market >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this argument for my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've said, my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> life
situation has changed in a way that makes me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before, and I'm >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying less than "my >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such government >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would dislike such a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a political >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> issue.
Everybody wants better services but they don't want to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them. (Our classic example here is better law >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement and more prisons, magically paid for by "No >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor vehicles >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last mile' truck >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> delivery). They pay road tax with every purchase, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way, through >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do now. But in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> principle, their total tax burden should be less, since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those who made private use of the roads would be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge non- drivers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and other wear >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the cost of >>>>>>>>>>>>>> shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less should pay less. >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong way by >>>>>>>>>>>>>> being
taxed for things which never get finished, never meet >>>>>>>>>>>>>> goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are relatively >>>>>>>>>>>>>> high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate' illiterates at >>>>>>>>>>>>>> $30,000 each per year. We all have our own egregious >>>>>>>>>>>>>> examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst public >>>>>>>>>>>> school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high- school- >>>>>>>>>>>> ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my people who >>>>>>>>>>> took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back from taking >>>>>>>>>>> the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions, which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him to answer >>>>>>>>>>> the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during the 9- year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4 through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the- relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ frederick_douglass_201574 >>>>>>>>>>
And as other failures, the revenue disappears, the problem >>>>>>>>>> grows because as always in government, "once you solve the >>>>>>>>>> problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl, having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English although growing
up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking Italian at home
and throughout their neighborhoods (in their respective cities) and
learned English when starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that the education
racket dwarfs all other local budget items combined. Results
diminish as the expenditures rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a priori
argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average- expenditures-
per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors, bulletproof glass,
armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between the 2019-2020
school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show employment in CPS has
increased by 5,472 full-time staff members between December of the
2019-2020 school year and December of the current 2023-2024 school
year. That’s a 15% increase in full-time staff members amidst a 9%
decrease in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools- employs-5500-
more- staff-members-for-32000-fewer-students- during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High School for the
2023-2024 school year, but the building can hold over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago Teachers Union
prohibits closing it and other underused schools. In fact, CTU sees
the 23 staffers at Douglass as inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight additional staff
members in the school. That would mean 31 staff members for 35 students. >>>
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All that money and
all that potential staff attention, yet it failed to produce even a
single student who was proficient in either reading or math on a
recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union- fails-to-
turn-68k- per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
I agree, that sounds bad. But that situation must be unusual. It can't
be enough to account for the huge increase shown in your Statista site.
FWIW, although it's a somewhat separate issue, I firmly believe that
university administration size has grown out of control. But locally
I'm not seeing the same thing for public schools.
And I'll note that locally, charter schools have shown worse results
than public schools, last I looked. For a while that was a big scandal
in Ohio, especially since the state's funding schemes effectively
charge public schools for each student who changes to a charter school.
Late follow up, but this is in the morning news today:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/opinion/american-education-facing-an- undeclared-emergency-with-some-scores-reaching-30-year-lows/
On 1/30/2025 10:25 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/25/2025 11:18 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/25/2025 9:01 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:05 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 7:52 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/24/2025 6:26 PM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 11:01:48 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/24/2025 10:19 AM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/24/2025 9:57 AM, John B. wrote:
On Fri, 24 Jan 2025 08:01:28 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 9:10 PM, John B. wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jan 2025 19:40:08 -0600, AMuzi
<am@yellowjersey.org> wrote:
On 1/23/2025 7:32 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 6:26 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:53 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 1/23/2025 2:38 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 1/23/2025 12:10 PM, Frank Krygowski wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 1/23/2025 6:23 AM, zen cycle wrote:
On 1/22/2025 10:03 PM, Frank Krygowski
wrote:
In fact, I think if we could do so, road >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> taxes
should
all be on such a per-mile-driven system, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> maybe
modified additionally for the weight of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> vehicle.
Texas tried it
https://www.dallasnews.com/news/
investigations/2024/10/23/ a-look- at-
texas-
private-
toll-roads/
at least in one case, it didn't go so well: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
https://www.texasobserver.org/texas-
tollway-288-
steep-
price/
"Since the tollway opened in November
2020, toll
rates
have increased by more than 160 percent, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going from
$11 for the full 20- mile round trip
during peak
hours
to $29 dollars now. "
That looks like an astonishingly bad
agreement
between
the government and BTG corporation. But
note that BTG
paid only a third of the cost of
construction, so
even
that "private" toll road was heavily
subsidized by
taxpayers. I'm pointing this out to those
who say
rail
transport should cover all its expenses
via fares,
with
zero subsidies.
To try for a broader overview of road
taxes: There
are
people who never drive, and people who
drive far more
than others. Since the vast majority of
road- related
expenses are _not_ covered by gasoline
taxes, why
should a non-driver pay the same road
taxes as a
mega-
driver?
Why not tie those taxes the amount of
roadway used by
each driver, since that (as well as vehicle >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> weight) is
a main determinant of roadway expenses?
After all,
train fares are strongly affected by the
the rider's
travel distance - IOW the amount of track
used.
To allay the fears of the paranoid: The
government
wouldn't need to track your movements.
You'd simply
need to submit evidence of your odometer
total
once per
year.
Seems to me the crew that says "Let the
market
decide"
should be all in favor of this idea.
And please note, I'm not making this
argument for my
own benefit. Quite the opposite! As I've
said, my
life
situation has changed in a way that makes me >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> driver far
more annual miles than I ever did before,
and I'm
doing
it in an EV. I'm pretty sure I'm paying
less than "my
share" of roadway expenses.
Many (I included) would sharply resist such
government
motoring of my auto use. That's a political
barrier, not
a technical issue.
Of course you, and many others, would
dislike such a
scheme! So yes, like many things, it's a
political
issue.
Everybody wants better services but they
don't want to
pay for them. (Our classic example here is
better law
enforcement and more prisons, magically paid
for by "No
new taxes!")
Also, people who do not own or use motor
vehicles
still
consume myriad products all of which are
transported by
motor freight (even air & rail have 'last
mile' truck
delivery). They pay road tax with every
purchase,
plus a
markup.
Of course. And they'd still pay that way,
through
normal
sales tax and purchase price, as they do
now. But in
principle, their total tax burden should be
less, since
those who made private use of the roads
would be
paying a
bit closer to their fair share.
It seems downright socialistic to charge
non- drivers
the
same as drivers for roads whose potholes and
other wear
the non-drivers never generate.
The principle is sound, that we all bear the
cost of
shared infrastructure.
But I'm saying those who "share" it less
should pay less.
Non-drivers get less for their tax money.
In practice, many people are rubbed the wrong
way by
being
taxed for things which never get finished,
never meet
goals, never benefit the citizenry.
Such as Chicago property taxes, which are
relatively
high
for US cities, pretending to 'graduate'
illiterates at
$30,000 each per year. We all have our own
egregious
examples I'm sure from potholes to bicycle
paths.
OK, I'll stop complaining unfair road taxes on
non-
drivers
if you stop complaining about Chicago student
performance.
Deal?  ;-)
It's merely an example with which I am very
familiar.
No different from Baltimore (arguably the worst
public
school system in USA) or Hartford:
https://ctmirror.org/2024/09/29/cant-read-high-
school-
ct-hartford/
When I was in the Air Force I had a guy that was
much
the same - he
could read but didn't understand what it meant.
He was getting along well until I sent him off
to take
his "skill
level"Â test and he failed it.
Now like most supervisors I had, by asking my
people who
took the
skill tests to sit down and write down as many
of the
questions as
they could remember as soon as they got back
from taking
the test,
accumulated most all of the test questions,
which I had
covered during
my training, so this seem unusual, to say the
least.
So, after "training him some more - asking him
to answer
the test
question - over and over, I sent him off to
retake the
test... and he
failed it again.
I don't know what made me think of it but I
asked the
test department
if he could tale the test orally and they
agreed. He
took it again and
got every question correct.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/2018-update-
prisoner-recidivism-9-year-follow-period-2005-2014
Eighty-two percent of prisoners arrested during
the 9- year
period were
arrested within the first 3 years.
Almost half (47%) of prisoners who did not have an
arrest
within 3
years of release were arrested during years 4
through 9.
Forty-four percent of released prisoners were
arrested
during the
first year following release, while 24% were arrested
during year-9.
Well the government schools' failure has broader
societal
effect:
https://www.literacymidsouth.org/news/the-
relationship-
between-incarceration-and-low-literacy/
For which Prison Fellowship makes an effort:
https://www.prisonfellowship.org/wp-content/
uploads/2018/01/Literacy-Programs-for-Prisoners-
article-2017.pdf
Noting that as Frederick Douglass observed:
https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/
frederick_douglass_201574
And as other failures, the revenue disappears,
the problem
grows because as always in government, "once you
solve the
problem, the money stops."
I only replied to one of your references as going
further
would just
be gilding the Lilly.
As usual with these sociological topics, I read
many more
complaints here than solutions.
I'm sure that inability to read greatly hampers
one's job
prospects. I'm also sure that men who can't get
jobs are
more likely than others to turn to crime.
I'm sure that stressors at home (as one of the
citations
notes); or as in the case of the illiterate girl,
having
parents who speak no English, hamper a child's
learning
while at home. And I'm sure that the home
environment is
critical for learning. If a kid's home life is
desperately
bad, I doubt any school will be able to repair its
effects.
So what should be done? Yelling at the teachers
won't help.
Taxing the citizenry heavily for abject failure hasn't
helped much so far either.
More gilded lilies :-)
My nephew speaks/reads/writes very good English
although growing up in
a home where no one spoke, or understood, English.
Many such examples as well, both classic and modern.
My parents and their many siblings grew up speaking
Italian at home and throughout their neighborhoods (in
their respective cities) and learned English when
starting school.
But a quick perusal of a property tax bill shows that
the education racket dwarfs all other local budget
items combined. Results diminish as the expenditures
rise.
But some prefer actual numbers rather than anecdote, a
priori argument or opinion:
Expenditure trend:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/185135/average-
expenditures- per- pupil-in-public-schools/
$2272 (1980 value) NPV would be $3068 in 2024:
https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/
I'd like to see some detail on the breakdown of expenses.
In 1980 there was no need for metal detectors,
bulletproof glass, armed security guards...
Trend:
"enrollment at CPS dropped by 31,905 students between
the 2019-2020 school year and the 2023-2024 school year.
Meanwhile, reports on CPS employee rosters show
employment in CPS has increased by 5,472 full-time staff
members between December of the 2019-2020 school year
and December of the current 2023-2024 school year.
That’s a 15% increase in full-time staff members amidst
a 9% decrease in enrollment."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-public-schools-
employs-5500- more- staff-members-for-32000-fewer-
students- during-past-four-years/
Exemplar, #1 example:
"Only 35 students enrolled in Douglass Academy High
School for the 2023-2024 school year, but the building
can hold over 900 students.
Logic would say it should be closed, but the Chicago
Teachers Union prohibits closing it and other underused
schools. In fact, CTU sees the 23 staffers at Douglass
as inadequate.
CTU’s new contract demands would put at least eight
additional staff members in the school. That would mean
31 staff members for 35 students.
Douglass already spends over $68,000 per student. All
that money and all that potential staff attention, yet
it failed to produce even a single student who was
proficient in either reading or math on a recent SAT."
https://www.illinoispolicy.org/chicago-teachers-union-
fails-to- turn-68k- per-student-into-even-1-academic-win/
I agree, that sounds bad. But that situation must be
unusual. It can't be enough to account for the huge
increase shown in your Statista site.
FWIW, although it's a somewhat separate issue, I firmly
believe that university administration size has grown out
of control. But locally I'm not seeing the same thing for
public schools.
And I'll note that locally, charter schools have shown
worse results than public schools, last I looked. For a
while that was a big scandal in Ohio, especially since
the state's funding schemes effectively charge public
schools for each student who changes to a charter school.
Late follow up, but this is in the morning news today:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/opinion/american-education-
facing-an- undeclared-emergency-with-some-scores-
reaching-30-year-lows/
Right wing opinion duly noted.
How about some facts?
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-01-29/massachusetts- student-test-scores-take-top-spot
Yes, States vary. Yes methodology is all over the place. YesLate follow up, but this is in the morning news today:
https://nypost.com/2025/01/29/opinion/american-education-
facing-an- undeclared-emergency-with-some-scores-
reaching-30-year-lows/
Right wing opinion duly noted.
How about some facts?
https://www.wgbh.org/news/local/2025-01-29/massachusetts-
student-test-scores-take-top-spot
adjacent school districts can show dramatic differences in
efficacy.
Still and all:
https://www.future-ed.org/the-new-naep-scores-highlight-a-standards-gap-in-many-states/
See especially States' individual results chart.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 13:56:54 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,889 |
| Posted today: | 1 |