The Observation Deck

Any sky shots of Lakewood?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/trying-measure-income-inequality-follow-trees

Scott Meeson wrote:Any sky shots of Lakewood?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/trying-measure-income-inequality-follow-trees

Speaking from the liberal perspective the solution is clear. Cut down all the trees in wealthy neighborhoods!

Bill Call wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Any sky shots of Lakewood?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/trying-measure-income-inequality-follow-trees

Speaking from the liberal perspective the solution is clear. Cut down all the trees in wealthy neighborhoods!

Bill

I think you are as capable of speaking from the liberal perspective as I am from the
conservative perspective.

Scott

I have followed the trees for over a year, they all seem to lead to the inner city.

Is this your point?

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Call wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Any sky shots of Lakewood?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/trying-measure-income-inequality-follow-trees

Speaking from the liberal perspective the solution is clear. Cut down all the trees in wealthy neighborhoods!

Bill

I think you are as capable of speaking from the liberal perspective as I am from the
conservative perspective.

Scott

I have followed the trees for over a year, they all seem to lead to the inner city.

Is this your point?

.

Jim,

I don't get this. How do the trees lead to the inner city? From the sky shots it looks like the inner city is where there are no trees.

Scott,

Thank you for this photo. It really makes it clear that a picture can be worth a thousand years. I'm not in agreement with liberal Bill that we should cut down the trees of the wealthy, but maybe we should take greater care in not cutting down the trees that aren't protected by being in the yards of the wealthy.

It seems that all the huge trees on my street have been cut down in the past two years. It looks different when you look down the street. Towering oaks and maples whose branches could touch each other from across the street, and which provided shade for a whole lot of people in the summer are gone. I guess it could be said that every single one of them was a threat, or diseased...?

We lost a lot of privately owned trees also, from the weather, but also not from the weather. If a house was in foreclosure, or bank-owned, or who knows, it seemed like the first thing done with them by whoever ended up with them, was to remove their trees also. Part of the "fixing up" process-- even if it didn't seem that the trees needed any fixing up.

So that's my street. On another one of "my" streets, Detroit, ALL the trees that were happily growing in front of the old CVS and Huntington and Burger King were all cut down, making those areas less pleasant to look at, walk through, or breathe, especially during the summer. Maybe the idea is to plant new ones, in planters, like in front of the new Drug Mart but if you read Mr. Palmer's Deck post, the future doesn't look too bright for those trees. (Unless they do indeed thrive on ketchup, old coffee and gum.)

My point? I guess maybe we should start including the trees themselves as Lakewood assets that we have to protect, instead of just the parks, or school properties, that contain them.

And of course I know the weather got rid of a bunch of them. The park in front of Lincoln School has been stripped of many old friends-- that was the hurricane. All the more reason to protect the ones we have, to value them, and notice when they are taken, and ask why.

Though, Jim, since I seem to have rambled on here, my question still remains. I don't see how they point to the inner city.

Betsy Voinovich

Jim O'Bryan wrote:
Scott

I have followed the trees for over a year, they all seem to lead to the inner city.

Is this your point?

.

Jim,

I thought it to be kind of interesting, trees as an indicator for income inequality in our own little town.

In 2010, Lakewood was named a "Tree City U.S.A." community by the Arbor Day Foundation.

As far as you following trees for over a year: if that put a feather in your cap, more power to you!

Scott Meeson

Jim O'Bryan wrote:

Bill Call wrote:

Scott Meeson wrote:Any sky shots of Lakewood?

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/wealth-poverty/trying-measure-income-inequality-follow-trees

Speaking from the liberal perspective the solution is clear. Cut down all the trees in wealthy neighborhoods!

Bill

I think you are as capable of speaking from the liberal perspective as I am from the
conservative perspective.

Scott

I have followed the trees for over a year, they all seem to lead to the inner city.

Is this your point?

.

I have a good understanding of the liberal mind. They see the world as a zero sum game and concentrate all of their efforts on redistribution rather than wealth creation.

Years ago I worked with a Hungarian Jew who came to this country after WW II. His family was killed in a concentration camp. He came to this country with nothing and built himself a sizeable fortune. He was a very tough man.

Anyway, he liked to tell stories from the old Country. Here is the short version of one:

There were two farmers who were neighbors. One farmer was very successful. He even had two cows!! His neighbor was not so succesful. He only had one cow. One day the less successfull farmer was plowing his field with his one cow and he unearthed an old clay jar. When he wiped off some of the dirt the jar began to shake and a Geni appeared.

The Genie thanked the farmer for freeing him and told the farmer that he would grant him one wish.

The farmer replied, "I can have any wish?"

"Yes", replied the Geni. "Anything you desire".

"My neighbor has two cows and I only have one. That's not fair!"

"What is your wish?", asked the Geni.

"I want you to kill one of my neighbors cows."

That's how a liberal thinks.

Bill - in the Two Farmers story, I read: "One farmer was very successful. He even had two cows!! His neighbor was not so succesful. He only had one cow."

Thus ... the person with "more stuff" (cows, money, etc.) is always deemed "more successful"???? In my book, that is one effed-up measure of a man!

Peter Grossetti wrote:Bill - in the Two Farmers story, I read: "One farmer was very successful. He even had two cows!! His neighbor was not so succesful. He only had one cow."

Thus ... the person with "more stuff" (cows, money, etc.) is always deemed "more successful"???? In my book, that is one effed-up measure of a man!

I almost agree. A lot of "successful" people don't have the most stuff and in a philosophical sense you make an excellent point. How many TV's does a man need?

On the other hand, in a time when the difference between having one cow or two meant the difference between eating or not eating the ownership of an extra cow meant life itself.

In a country as wealthy as ours that has been as wealthy as long as ours it's easy to assume that wealth just happens.

Peter Grossetti wrote:Bill - in the Two Farmers story, I read: "One farmer was very successful. He even had two cows!! His neighbor was not so succesful. He only had one cow."

Thus ... the person with "more stuff" (cows, money, etc.) is always deemed "more successful"???? In my book, that is one effed-up measure of a man!

I almost agree. A lot of "successful" people don't have the most stuff and in a philosophical sense you make an excellent point. How many TV's does a man need?

On the other hand, in a time when the difference between having one cow or two meant the difference between eating or not eating the ownership of an extra cow meant life itself.

In a country as wealthy as ours that has been as wealthy as long as ours it's easy to assume that wealth just happens.

Bill Call wrote:

Peter Grossetti wrote:Bill - in the Two Farmers story, I read: "One farmer was very successful. He even had two cows!! His neighbor was not so succesful. He only had one cow."

Thus ... the person with "more stuff" (cows, money, etc.) is always deemed "more successful"???? In my book, that is one effed-up measure of a man!

I almost agree. A lot of "successful" people don't have the most stuff and in a philosophical sense you make an excellent point. How many TV's does a man need?

On the other hand, in a time when the difference between having one cow or two meant the difference between eating or not eating the ownership of an extra cow meant life itself.

In a country as wealthy as ours that has been as wealthy as long as ours it's easy to assume that wealth just happens.

Bill

See, now that is a liberal mind.

Now for a flaming liberal stance.

I would add, why did the "joke" have to told by a "Hungarian" "Jew"?

.

Jim O'Bryan wrote:Bill

See, now that is a liberal mind.

Now for a flaming liberal stance.

I would add, why did the "joke" have to told by a "Hungarian" "Jew"?

.

Because the friend was a real person, Andrew S., a Jew from Hungry. He was always quick to remind people of that fact. He had a good understanding of human nature

Bill -

Let me follow up on Jim's question:

Does (or should) the story teller's race, religion, nationality, etc really matter? (I ask from the Centrist's perspective)