Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jimbo_Poke

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Team
  • Gender
  • Location
    Beneath the Bighorns
  • Interests
    Pokes, Hiking, Fishing, Camping, Engineering, Wyonation as Expat_Poke,

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I haven't looked at any sort of structural plans of the roof framing but I have read a number of stories referencing the roof framing as a forest. The task of trying to recreate that and analyzing that framing seems daunting. My shoot from the hip idea is using modern construction methods in concealed spaces like the roof would help shorten the project duration, possibly lighten the dead load on the potentially weakened stone, and help reduce costs. I am guessing the roof framing will be modern with a false ceiling and some architectural use of the oaks grown at Versailles to match historical interior appearance. My two cents on the cause and origin. These investigations take time, and unless (as you mentioned earlier) you have workers reporting the cause directly to the investigators/police it is best to take a wait and see. They report they have not found evidence of arson, but I have worked on much smaller fires that the evidence for arson was not apparent or found until days or even weeks into the investigation. With the 1000-2000 French Christian Churches that have been vandalized (varying degrees but includes some arson) these past two years the potential that this was an act of arson is likely in the back of a lot of French minds. I think to try and quiet that is certainly coming into play in the rapid dissemination that this was related to the renovation. I will leave it at that, and let's see what the investigators determine. For those worrying about potential cover ups, I am assuming (dangerous I know but I don't have time now to look up property insurance and civil law in France) insurance works somewhat similar to insurance here in the states. The cause of that fire is going to determine who is paying big sums of money. You will have multiple outside inspectors (not just government) representing different parties (owner, contractor, subcontractors ) looking at it, looking at the evidence. That again is if the French system is at all similar to ours. It may or may not be. I hope it is similar as this system helps prevent cover-ups and adds transparency to such events and helps reduce conspiracy talk. As a Catholic engineer who thoroughly enjoys history and historical architecture, the loss that did happen really gets at me. That written I am thankful that no one was seriously hurt let alone killed, and am thankful to the efforts of those firefighters who in such tough conditions saved what they saved. In the end, if this reinvigorates the actual Catholic Church in Paris (not the building but the people) I will count this as an overall blessing rather than a total tragedy.
  2. Pack fans, was pulling for you guys. Stinks the rally came up short.
  3. Is what is popular always right? If not, why make national popularity of the moment the only thing that matters when electing the president? Thing is popularity like any other form of power needs to be checked and balanced.
  4. Let me see if I can spell this out for you. You cannot separate ideology from how one thinks things should be governed. I am an American conservative (that is different than a European conservative). That means my ideology says that governance should follow the idea of subsidiarity and that power at all levels should be thoroughly checked and balanced. That includes the power of population. The way we have allocated representation is the result of that ideology. This isn't about how to better position the government so that I can get a better result in a particular current issue. That is short sighted vision that wrecks our system. Rather I believe that a government with proper subsidiarity and checks and balances is the best way to govern and I will work with that framework of government to address individual issues of concern to me. Fundamental difference in how I see things and how you see things. You see things as how do I change government to achieve what I want, I view it has how to establish a government that works best and work within that system. You have people here proposing the radical idea that only population should matter in picking the President. There are a whole host of problems with that. It throws out balancing the different regions (some of which are more heavily impacted by the central government agencies run by the President than others). It would effectively make the small states slave to the big states. We currently have a compromise of a system that balances state and individual representation. We have people who think this system is too unfair to the big states. What my "proposal" was trying to illustrate is that we have a compromise of a system by pointing out what the other extreme is. One puts forward the extreme position that it should be by population alone. I offer a counter extreme position that I know will never be agreed to, it should be by a mixture of population, state, and other factors. Lets compromise, ok how about the current system. This is to correctly frame the debate in that we have a middle of the road system in place. Finally, I hold that big states have too much power because I deal with the federal bureaucracy day in and day out. I see the BLM dictate to private landowners to build roads and develop land in ways that is worse for the land and violates core engineering principles that I have learned. I say that big states have too much power because you get pressure from large population centers driving wildlife management to the detriment of wildlife. You get public outcry over a grizzly hunt that would be far better for the bears by targeting boars and instead get the hunt cancelled and instead of losing 12 boars you get 12 sows with cubs killed because there are too many boars that drive the sows into worse habitat. I could go on and on. It isn't an abstract idea, this is people's lives and livelihoods I am talking about. You in California know jack all about it, yet demand you have more say in what should be local and state affairs. I don't want to be involved in how Sacramento, San Jose, San Francisco, or California manages their parks or streets, yet there are plenty of Californians that do that exact thing to Wyoming.
  5. You are way off in left field. My proposal was not a serious proposal, which is why I called it tongue in cheek. It was to try to get people to understand population is but one aspect of how and why power is allocated. And it is about governance and how to effectively check and balance power. That is a core aspect of governance. As to your second point no, not at all. My point is that the current setup of representation is to try and prevent too much of big states dictating to small states and vice versa. Is it perfect, no, I think big states are still able to bully smaller states too much. This is why I brought up the huge percentage of lands under management by the central government in western states as an example. Any attempts to further reduce the power held right now by small states will be met by a big f-off as big states already hold enough power as is.
  6. See Happy's reply, but when it comes to energy generated Texas is no 1 Wyoming is no 2. Not bad for the least populated state. Regardless each state has certain differences. Different geography, culture, challenges, attributes. The balance is such that you don't have a bunch of Wyomingite dictating to Californians and vice versa. Right now with the federal management of lands in Wyoming I would argue you have too much of that anyhow and it has real negative impacts on my state. If I have a problem with the Wyoming Oil and Gas I can contact my county commissioners, local legislator and governor and things will at least be looked at. I have a problem with BLM and I am S.O.L. We are not a democracy, true democracy will always degenerate into mob rule. We are a representative republic with important checks and balances. A key part of that is balancing the different regions to avoid a world like the fictional world of the Mockingjay books. This is why you balance between equal representation of each individual state and the voice of the individual. This is not a false reality it is what our existing system of dividing representation is based on. My proposal was a tic proposal trying to get people to understand population is but one aspect of checking and balancing power. Also would you rather dilute your 1 in 327,000,000 voice (individual vote) or your 3 in 538 voice? Yeah I would say our current system is a workable compromise.
  7. Energy is vital to the functioning of our modern society. Therefore I propose that the number of votes be allocated not just by state, then population, but also energy produced. Also since federal management of lands has a great influence on a state, after energy produced we should further modify representation by percentage of the state managed by federal agencies. Anybody understand what I am getting at? Wyoming and other lesser populated western states have a lot of mineral and energy wealth. Also huge chunks of land are managed by federal agencies which greatly affects the states. To simply set government control of these to wholly popular control means enslavement of states like Wyoming to California, New York, Texas, and a whole lot of people who know zip about the land or how energy is produced. On the flip side simply making all states equal is the opposite extreme. That is why we have the compromise we have. Sure an individual Wyomingite may have more say than an individual Californian, but the State of California has a bigger say than the state of Wyoming. It is a compromise, it is an attempt at balance.
  8. Baloney. You don't get to determine what the debate hinges on. Read the language of the majority opinion of Roe v Wade and you will see the nature of the fetus absolutely plays a role. Also why do you use the term alive in quotes? There is no question that the fetus is a living human being that is scientific fact. I also don't buy that simply ending the life of ones offspring equals giving women value. I would argue it is more the opposite. Men who don't value women and want to use them for primarily for sexual pleasure want that option of abortion to be available to avoid having to take responsibility for possible natural consequences of sexual intercourse.
  9. Yeah and now look at modestobulldog's post or even look at Mayo Clinic Fetal Development. Thing is by the time one knows they are pregnant, that human has developed quite a bit.
  10. I thought it was midmajor level programs that had to watch out for the hammer. Wichita State better watch themselves here.
  11. Tinfoil hat time. Possibility that this was a tanking performance to get two bids and more money for the conference?
  12. Well here is the thing with a living person, you can show up and get yourself back to being a registered voter. Not hard. If I move back to Laramie, Centennial, or Denver where I have been purged from the voter registration, I can get myself back as a registered voter even after being purged. And as a general aside, yeah if I have to display photo ID to purchase a firearm and exercise my 2nd Amendment rights, it is not unreasonable to ask that one offer evidences that they are who they say they are in order to vote.
  13. It is the right of individuals to defend themselves and their property that is a big foundation to ensuring a continuing free market. Perfect example is the Johnson County War. If the people of Buffalo had not been armed they would have been at the total mercy of the politically connected. That wasn't that long ago and human nature hasn't changed that much. Heck look at certain neighborhoods in modern day Chicago and you see the dynamic of disarming and then disenfranchising the people while giving them a little bread and circus. And a certain Nazerene. Sorry of I side with him rather than George Lucas's opinion.
  14. Meh Utahns wearing blue, close enough. Besides the Utah State - Wyoming rivalry dates back to 1903 earlier than BYU. Nope if this means the destruction of BYU athletics Wyo will be just fine. Now Wyo just needs to get that rifle back...