A Nation of Addicts
Can oil and democracy mix?
by Franklin Kalinowski in Orion Magazine
When I was a young man, I worked for a while as a drug counselor, first in a methadone clinic, and then in a heroin detoxification unit. I have seen and know something about addiction. I later earned a PhD in political science, in the process acquiring an idea of what the Founders of the American political system were trying to accomplish. If we take seriously the news that Americans are "addicted to oil," it means we have become a nation of addicts, and the question that must be addressed is what a democracy composed of addicts portends for our future. Reconciling a population of addicts with the principles and practices of the American political system will not be easy. In fact, it will be impossible: democracy wasn't built for addicts.
The Founders of our democracy bequeathed to us a legacy of cultural values that display the diversity of their social perspectives. One group argued that politics was about the public, patriotic pursuit of the common good of the community. Americans were viewed as citizens who would be willing to sacrifice for the general welfare. Other Founders asserted that humans are essentially individuals and not community members. These consumers are primarily motivated by the passionate pursuit of their economic self-interests and should be given the freedom to seek their unique pleasures in their unique ways. Over the years, we as a nation have never totally accepted nor totally rejected either vision. We have ignored the logical contradictions and constructed a society where people are encouraged to be both patriotic and self-interested.
But where do addicts fit into this picture? Surely the addict cannot be considered a virtuous citizen. The essence of citizenship is a concern for the community and a willingness to forgo personal pleasure for the common good. The addict cares nothing about others or tomorrow, and for this reason, addiction and civic virtue are antithetical. Either the craving for the addictive substance will destroy all other pursuits, or the republic must cure the addiction and convert the addict into a citizen.
On the surface there may appear similarities between the addict and today's consumer, but these melt with closer scrutiny. Like an addict, the consumer may be a pleasure-seeking (an economist would say "utility maximizing") individual, but consumers know there are costs and benefits associated with their various choices, and they are rational enough to engage in calculations regarding these trade-offs. For the addict, there is no alternative to acquiring the addictive substance, and that is why they will pay any cost and ignore any harm their addiction will cause. Economic markets, built upon the assumption of rational consumers, are institutions ill suited to restrain addicts bent on ever greater overindulgence, even unto death.
If America is "addicted to oil" we will have to reach deep into our Founders' legacies for the strength to struggle against what we have become, for the truth is that there is a citizen, a consumer, and an addict in each of us. Citizens and consumers might grimace at the difficult policy choices lying ahead, but they will acquiesce in the face of necessity and move to have tough energy policies that restrict our addiction to oil put into practice.
It is urgently important that Americans not let our inner addict supersede our citizen and consumer. Imagine, just for a second, what would happen if we let the addicts run the methadone clinics and the detoxification units. Imagine what will become of America if we let our oil addiction determine the fate of our democracy.
Sunday, August 23, 2009
Sunday, July 26, 2009
ill informed and poorly researched
It's time to end the free ride for cyclists
by Paula Carlson, editor Surrey/N.Delta Leader (a local rag)
They’ve got their own paths, their own lanes, and their own streets, and if Vancouver’s mayor gets his way, they’ll soon have their own bridge.
In addition to their specially designated areas, cyclists clearly have clout.
They’re certainly increasing in numbers. Packs of pedal-pushers are a common sight on urban streets, in all types of weather and across staggering distances.
Years ago, slogging to work under your own steam while battling the elements and fellow commuters was seen as diehard. Now it’s de rigueur.
TransLink has added bike racks to buses, two-wheelers can be packed onto SkyTrain, and walkways in parks and along seawalls have been divided in half to accommodate bicycle enthusiasts.
Even new multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects – such as the Pitt River Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge and the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge – have incorporated cyclists into the plans, with lanes and ramps and roundabouts factored in.
In Vancouver, a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge has been closed to cars to make way for cyclists as part of a three-month $1-million pilot project.
And in the future, having cyclists share the same span with motor vehicles may not be good enough. Mayor Gregor Robertson is talking about building a $45-million crossing in False Creek that would be open to bikers and pedestrians only.
All municipal taxpayers would pony up the dough, mind you.
Enough is enough. It’s high time cyclists enjoyed the full rights of the road – including the right to obtain a licence, buy plates and insurance, and be subject to more frequent traffic violation tickets.
After all, under the Motor Vehicle Act, a person operating a bicycle has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle.
If bicycles are going to be a permanent and proliferate part of the regional transportation system, then bike riders need to buck up.
5the cost of getting around isn’t going to get any cheaper. In fact, TransLink – the regional authority responsible for transit – is currently grappling with how to raise an extra $450 million in annual operating costs for improvements such as more SkyTrain lines and additional buses.
Some of the funding measures being considered include hiking fuel, pay parking and property taxes, raising bus fares, and imposing a car levy.
If drivers, businesses and homeowners have to shell out for transit, then why not cyclists?
The template for regulating cyclists is already in place. Commercial cyclists, such as couriers, must pass a written test and purchase a licence plate.
Adding a requirement for insurance and ramping up enforcement of existing traffic laws would generate revenue and encourage safer riding practices. Fines, “points,” and at-fault accidents that increase the cost of bike insurance would act as a deterrent to cyclists who want all the rights of the road, but adhere to none of the rules (e.g. failing to stop at red lights and stop signs; travelling on sidewalks; riding without due care and attention).
Cycling is a viable and pleasurable means of transportation that is obviously gaining in popularity and breaking new ground. However it’s time to level the playing field.
I say welcome to the concrete jungle. But cyclists should enjoy gridlock in all its glory – and that means helping to fund the system.
pcarlson@surreyleader.com
by Paula Carlson, editor Surrey/N.Delta Leader (a local rag)
They’ve got their own paths, their own lanes, and their own streets, and if Vancouver’s mayor gets his way, they’ll soon have their own bridge.
In addition to their specially designated areas, cyclists clearly have clout.
They’re certainly increasing in numbers. Packs of pedal-pushers are a common sight on urban streets, in all types of weather and across staggering distances.
Years ago, slogging to work under your own steam while battling the elements and fellow commuters was seen as diehard. Now it’s de rigueur.
TransLink has added bike racks to buses, two-wheelers can be packed onto SkyTrain, and walkways in parks and along seawalls have been divided in half to accommodate bicycle enthusiasts.
Even new multi-million-dollar infrastructure projects – such as the Pitt River Bridge, the Golden Ears Bridge and the new 10-lane Port Mann Bridge – have incorporated cyclists into the plans, with lanes and ramps and roundabouts factored in.
In Vancouver, a lane on the Burrard Street Bridge has been closed to cars to make way for cyclists as part of a three-month $1-million pilot project.
And in the future, having cyclists share the same span with motor vehicles may not be good enough. Mayor Gregor Robertson is talking about building a $45-million crossing in False Creek that would be open to bikers and pedestrians only.
All municipal taxpayers would pony up the dough, mind you.
Enough is enough. It’s high time cyclists enjoyed the full rights of the road – including the right to obtain a licence, buy plates and insurance, and be subject to more frequent traffic violation tickets.
After all, under the Motor Vehicle Act, a person operating a bicycle has the same rights and responsibilities as a driver of a vehicle.
If bicycles are going to be a permanent and proliferate part of the regional transportation system, then bike riders need to buck up.
5the cost of getting around isn’t going to get any cheaper. In fact, TransLink – the regional authority responsible for transit – is currently grappling with how to raise an extra $450 million in annual operating costs for improvements such as more SkyTrain lines and additional buses.
Some of the funding measures being considered include hiking fuel, pay parking and property taxes, raising bus fares, and imposing a car levy.
If drivers, businesses and homeowners have to shell out for transit, then why not cyclists?
The template for regulating cyclists is already in place. Commercial cyclists, such as couriers, must pass a written test and purchase a licence plate.
Adding a requirement for insurance and ramping up enforcement of existing traffic laws would generate revenue and encourage safer riding practices. Fines, “points,” and at-fault accidents that increase the cost of bike insurance would act as a deterrent to cyclists who want all the rights of the road, but adhere to none of the rules (e.g. failing to stop at red lights and stop signs; travelling on sidewalks; riding without due care and attention).
Cycling is a viable and pleasurable means of transportation that is obviously gaining in popularity and breaking new ground. However it’s time to level the playing field.
I say welcome to the concrete jungle. But cyclists should enjoy gridlock in all its glory – and that means helping to fund the system.
pcarlson@surreyleader.com
in response
--A response to a published editorial in the Burnaby NewsLeader and Surrey/North Delta Leader by Paula Carlson, editor
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
It's time to end the free ride for motorists. As a car-free person and cyclist by choice, I am constantly being forced to subsidize a motoring lifestyle that is rapidly destroying the public environment for private benefit, which in turn serves to destroy my own, and my neighbours' health and well-being.
Whenever I see "free" parking, I pay for that. Every time I see an obese smoker idling in traffic inside a ton of useless metal, with three empty seats beside her, I think, 'there is my tax dollars subsidising an unhealthy lifestyle enabled by motoring,' and I will pay for that for years to come. Your auto insurance subsidy, your gasoline subsidy, your parking subsidy, the brown haze of pollution, I pay for that.
Police services that assumes I am at fault in any collision, and that laughed in my face when I asked about the liklihood of my stolen bike being returned, I pay for that. Yet I see a large publically funded bait-car campaign with a great deal of advertising. I pay for that.
Without any public consultation, the federal goverenmnet has seen fit to buy 12% of a failed foreign car company, and will guarantee warranties on poorly built products. I pay for that.
Cyclists are not some strange invasive species. They are your friends and neighbours, your doctor and your postman; they are homeowners, business owners and sometimes motorists and yes, they are already taxpayers, just like you.
Unlike many self-serving lobby groups, the future that cyclists desire is a benefit to everyone--clean air, a clean and healthy food and water supply, communities and streets that are safe for all users. Instead of attacking bicycle riders, you should be thanking them for trying to bring a healthier and more livable future to the Lower Mainland.
Sunday, July 19, 2009
Open Letter
--an open letter to the motorist who nearly killed me last Friday morning, from a bicycle rider
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Dear Ma'am,
We first met at a four way stop in suburban Burnaby. It was Friday morning and, I guess, we were both on our way to work. As I was to your right, I proceeded to turn right, while you waited your turn and proceeded straight. We were both headed down the hill, we both had to stop at the bottom to wait for traffic to clear. I was in front of you, but surely not blocking your view. You could not have failed to notice there were cars parked along both sides of the narrow street, allowing a space where only one vehicle could safely travel at a time.
When you leaned on your horn I was not too upset. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence, usually a sign of ignorance and impatience, no matter what vehicles we choose to drive. However, when you revved your engine and proceeded to illegally pass me within four inches of my elbow, that is what upset me. Your choice to dangerously pass me was as much a threat as you pointing a gun out your window. Your choice to deliberately endanger my life raised my anger. Go figure.
Perhaps you were unclear about why I was in the middle of the travel lane. As I cannot trust that people will look before opening their doors into traffic, I cannot be as close to the parked cars as you might like. Should someone fail to check and open their door in front of me, my choice is to crash into a hard sharp metal object and the person exiting their vehicle, or swerve out into traffic, right in front of you. Sorry, but neither of these is good, so I will always choose the third option--to be in the middle of the street where I can see and be seen, where a car door heedlessly swung open will have no effect upon me.
I am not in the middle of the lane to show off the beauty and superior efficiency of my vehicle. I am not there to deliberately slow you down. My reason for being there is purely selfish I will admit, it is for my own safety. I am in the middle of the road because it is not safe for you to pass. When it is safe, I will most certainly pull to the side to allow you by. Until then, please be patient.
If you would have exercised two seconds of patience, I would have turned left at the next intersection. I did not want you tailgating me any more than you wanted me slowing your progress. Maybe you were running late, but if I ended up under the wheels of your truck due to your reckless negligence, what delay would that have caused you? Would you have even stopped?
If you had exercised two seconds of patience, we would have both arrived at work happier people, instead of being angered and frustrated for the duration of our commute and beyond.
When you stopped and rolled down your window, I enquired if you were deliberately trying to kill me. From my perspective this is what you were attempting to do. I seriously doubt this was your intention; I'm sure friends and family regard you as a nice person. However, for a lack of two seconds of patience, you could have negatively changed both our lives forever.
Your only reply was, "Share the Road." Perhaps you are confused about what this means. It does not mean I should cower in the gutter and allow your environment killing dinosaur to roar by heedlessly. It does not mean I should put my safety in jeopardy so that you can arrive at the next stop sign two seconds earlier.
Bicycle riders have no choice but to share the road, so this is mostly a plea to motorists. Just because you choose the most selfish of transportation options does not mean your time is more valuable than mine, it does not mean you have any more right to the road than I do, and it certainly does not give you any right to deliberately endanger my life.
yours,
on two wheels,
David
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Blackest Day in Canadian History
Officer in charge, RCMP War Crimes Section 110 Place d'Orléans, Room 2200 Ottawa, Ontario, K1A 0R2
Attention Officer in Charge of RCMP War Crimes Section;
George W. Bush is reported to be planning to visit Calgary Alberta on or before March 17, 2009 as a guest of the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.
We are writing to report that:
• George W. Bush, former President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, is inadmissible to Canada under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), section 35(1)(a) because of overwhelming evidence that he has 'committed, outside Canada, torture and other offences referred to in sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (CAHWC); and,
• the George W. Bush Administration has engaged in "systematic or gross human rights violations, or a war crime or a crime against humanity within the meaning of subsections 6(3) to (5) of the CAHWC.
We request that the RCMP War Crimes Section immediately take the following steps:
• begin an investigation of George W. Bush for aiding, abetting and counseling torture between November 13, 2001 and November 2008 at Guantánamo Bay prison in Cuba, Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, Bagram prison in Afghanistan and other places; and,
• advise the Prime Minister, Attorney General of Canada and Ministers of Immigration and Public Safety that the George W. Bush administration is a "government that has engaged in torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity and therefore G.W. Bush, as former President, is also inadmissible under section 35(1)(b) of the IRPA.
Overwhelming evidence of these allegations against both G.W. Bush and the Bush Administration is widely available. These allegations have triggered Canada's duty to act to use all legal means to ensure the appropriate investigations, remedies and responses. Canada's international legal duties specifically prohibit treating these acts as legal, as ignoring the IRPA and allowing Bush into Canada would do.
Under sections 4 to 7 of the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, "crimes against humanity" include murder, enforced disappearance, deportation, imprisonment, torture and imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law, committed against any civilian population or any identifiable group. War crimes include willful killing, torture and inhuman treatment, unlawful confinement and willfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of fair trial rights.
If there are reasonable grounds to believe a person has been complicit in any of these crimes, entry to Canada must be denied. Reasonable grounds, according to the Supreme Court of Canada are "something more than suspicion but less than...proof on the balance of probabilities."
Many have concluded that the available evidence establishes conclusively that Bush and the Bush Administration committed torture and other war crimes and crimes against humanity and that Canada and other states now have a duty to condemn, investigate, prosecute and punish those crimes.
U.N. General Assembly President Miguel d'Escoto Brockmann, on March 4, 2009 concluded, "The [Bush Administration] aggressions against Iraq and Afghanistan and their occupations constitute atrocities that must be condemned and repudiated by all who believe in the rule of law in international relations,"
U. N. Special Rapporteur Martin Scheinin, in February 2009 concluded, "...the United States has created a comprehensive system of extraordinary renditions, prolonged and secret detention, and practices that violate the prohibition against torture and other forms of ill-treatment....States must not aid or assist in the commission of acts of torture, or recognize such practices as lawful, ...Under international human rights law, States are under a positive obligation to conduct independent investigations into alleged violations of the right to life, freedom from torture or other inhuman treatment, enforced disappearances or arbitrary detention, to bring to justice those responsible for such acts, and to provide reparations where they have participated in such violations."
The RCMP has a duty to investigate and prevent such crimes at common law and also under the War Crimes Program. This program, as you know, was established specifically to meet the challenge of investigating crimes committed outside Canadian territory. The mandate of the War Crimes Program to, "...ensure that the Government of Canada has properly addressed all allegations of war crimes..." is achieved by, "...the RCMP, with the support of DOJ [Department of Justice], investigating allegations involving reprehensible acts that could lead to a possible criminal prosecution."
Lawyers Against the War is ready, on request, to provide references to evidence of torture. We are confident that other organizations such as the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights, National Lawyers Guild, American Civil Liberties Association and the Center for Constitutional Rights would also be ready to assist by providing references to evidence.
We request a reply before March 17, 2009
Respectfully,
Gail Davidson, Lawyers Against the War
Copied to: Prime Minster Stephen Harper; Attorney General Rob Nicholson; Peter Van Loan, Minister of Public Safety; Jason Kenney, Minister of Immigration; Lawrence Cannon, Minister of Foreign Affairs; Jack Layton-Leader of NDP; Joe Comartin, NDP Justice Critic; Paul Dewar, NDP Foreign Affairs Critic; NDP Don Davies, Critic on Immigration; Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff; Bob Rae, Liberal Foreign Affairs Critic; Dominic Leblanc, Liberal Justic Critic; Maurizio Bevilacqua, Liberal Immigration Critic; Leader of the Bloc Quebecois Gilles Duceppe; Real Menard, BQ Justice critic; Serge Menard, BQ Public Security critic; Thierry St-Cyr, Bloc Immigration critic ; Paul Crete, Bloc Foreign Affairs critic.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Let the Dinosaurs Die.
Dig Up the Roads!
Is This the End of the Age of the Automobile?
By HARVEY WASSERMAN
As a dominant form of transportation, the automobile is dead. So is GM, which now stands for Gone Mad.
But the larger picture says that the financial crisis now enveloping the world is grounded in the transition from the automobile---and the fossils that fuel it---to a brave renewable world of reborn mass transit and green power.
If GM lives in any form, it must be owned and operated by its workers and the public.
But the larger transition is epic and global, based on a simple structural reality: the passenger car is obsolete. Auto sales have plummeted not merely because of a bad economy, but because the technology no longer makes sense.
Franklin Roosevelt took GM over in 1943-5 to make the hardware to beat the Nazis. Barack Obama should now do the same to beat climate chaos.
Make streetcars, not passenger cars.
Hybrids are too little, too late, with problems of their own. Solar-powered electric cars will help phase out the gas guzzlers.
But in the long run, the automobile itself needs to be dismantled and re-cycled, not retooled or rebuilt.
Cars still kill 40,000 Americans/year, and thousands more worldwide. No matter how much less gas each may burn, they all consume unsustainable resources to manufacture, operate and terminate.
We need to dig up roads, not build more. We need rails and coaches, bio-diesel buses and self-propelled trolleys, Solartopian super-trains and in-town people movers, not to mention windmills, solar panels, wave generators and geothermal piping.
In America's corporate-conceived “love affair with the automobile,” our first spouse---mass transit---was murdered. Now the unsustainable obsolescence of the private passenger car is collapsing a global financial system built on the illusion of its constant growth.
Mother Earth can’t sustain the old four-wheeled carry-one-person-around-the-block paradigm, be it hybrid, electric or otherwise.
If the automobile and its attendant freeways continue to metastasize in India, China and Africa as they did in the 20th Century United States, we are doomed.
Our true challenge is to envision, engineer and build a Solartopian transportation system that moves people and things cleanly around a crowded planet with diminishing resources and no margin for ecological error.
For that we need every cent and brain cell devoted to what’s new and works, not what’s failed and could kill us all.
Harvey Wasserman, a co-founder of Musicians United for Safe Energy, is editing the nukefree.org web site. He is the author of SOLARTOPIA! Our Green-Powered Earth, A.D. 2030, is at www.solartopia.org. He can be reached at: Windhw@aol.com
Friday, February 27, 2009
From the Wire
Yesterday during a presentation at the state capitol related to a bill to reduce carbon emissions and the number of miles vehicles in Minnesota are driven, Sen. Julianne Ortman, R-Chanhassen, grew incredulous and asked, "Mr. Chair, are we still in America? ... I find that to be very offensive, an insult to every person who drives a car. I guess it insults me because I drove to the Capitol alone today. I find that very insulting."
Ortman was referring to an image from the cover of a 2002 book by the comedian Bill Maher, which was titled, "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on Terrorism."
Oh boy, this pushes all my buttons.
Prof Marshall raises a salient and important point of debate, one that is almost never talked about, but he fails miserably to demonstrate any strength in his conviction, and turns into such an obsequious little toady at the feet of a fat-ass Pol. The way he caves to her mock outrage is embarrassing and probably served to defeat his argument before he even got started.
Should we be surprised at Senator Fat-Ass's hissy fit? No, not at all. It seems nothing has changed from Bushie's 'Murika: " Tell us what we want to hear, not what the research shows, or your considered professional opinion." It would seem also that Senator Fatt-Ass is sticking to the playbook of keeping people as much in the dark as possible concerning the fact that the country is prosecuting wars of Imperial design. killing thousands, displacing millions, burning billions of gallons of oil and spending trillions of dollars in the process.
But is anyone asking what kind of carbon footprint the big green killing machine leaves behind?
This mock outrage is no great surprise, and in line with a significant and telling moment when the new Great Imperial Leader in his first speech said, "We will not apologize for our way of life." So as long as we 'Murikans can continue to consume and waste the majority of the world's resources and human capital, as long as the world continues to subsidize our cheap gas and our "non-negotiable way of life", then all is right with the world.
Why is it so offensive to suggest that it is unsustainable and the height of selfishness to drag around three empty seats and a ton and a half of metal on your daily travels through "Errandsville"?
So why is it so offensive to be even beyond rational discussion in a Senate hearing, that, god forbid, people might have to share a commute? People seem ready to embrace change, so long as it doesn't affect them personally.
+++
Whenever I have to stand and wait at a bus stop, or even waiting at red lights, I tend to count cars. Excluding all commercial vehicles, trucks and transit, I count only private autos, to see whether or not there is a passenger.
Typically, here is what I see.
On weekends it averages about 1:1, 50% of cars are single occupant. Midweek, midday, its about 3:1, 75%. Rushhour ramps up to 4:1 or more, typically 80-90% of cars carry one fat ass and three empty seats.
This is what is truly offensive.
Ortman was referring to an image from the cover of a 2002 book by the comedian Bill Maher, which was titled, "When You Ride Alone, You Ride with bin Laden: What the Government Should Be Telling Us to Help Fight the War on Terrorism."
Oh boy, this pushes all my buttons.
Prof Marshall raises a salient and important point of debate, one that is almost never talked about, but he fails miserably to demonstrate any strength in his conviction, and turns into such an obsequious little toady at the feet of a fat-ass Pol. The way he caves to her mock outrage is embarrassing and probably served to defeat his argument before he even got started.
Should we be surprised at Senator Fat-Ass's hissy fit? No, not at all. It seems nothing has changed from Bushie's 'Murika: " Tell us what we want to hear, not what the research shows, or your considered professional opinion." It would seem also that Senator Fatt-Ass is sticking to the playbook of keeping people as much in the dark as possible concerning the fact that the country is prosecuting wars of Imperial design. killing thousands, displacing millions, burning billions of gallons of oil and spending trillions of dollars in the process.
But is anyone asking what kind of carbon footprint the big green killing machine leaves behind?
This mock outrage is no great surprise, and in line with a significant and telling moment when the new Great Imperial Leader in his first speech said, "We will not apologize for our way of life." So as long as we 'Murikans can continue to consume and waste the majority of the world's resources and human capital, as long as the world continues to subsidize our cheap gas and our "non-negotiable way of life", then all is right with the world.
Why is it so offensive to suggest that it is unsustainable and the height of selfishness to drag around three empty seats and a ton and a half of metal on your daily travels through "Errandsville"?
So why is it so offensive to be even beyond rational discussion in a Senate hearing, that, god forbid, people might have to share a commute? People seem ready to embrace change, so long as it doesn't affect them personally.
+++
Whenever I have to stand and wait at a bus stop, or even waiting at red lights, I tend to count cars. Excluding all commercial vehicles, trucks and transit, I count only private autos, to see whether or not there is a passenger.
Typically, here is what I see.
On weekends it averages about 1:1, 50% of cars are single occupant. Midweek, midday, its about 3:1, 75%. Rushhour ramps up to 4:1 or more, typically 80-90% of cars carry one fat ass and three empty seats.
This is what is truly offensive.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Read me
Rep. Earl BlumenauerCongressman from Oregon
Posted February 6, 2009 | 06:44 PM (EST)
No, Seriously: Republicans Don't Get It
With this latest attempt to strip bike funding from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.
Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects-- therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.
We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal. There are tens of millions of American cyclists and even more who want their children to be able to bike and walk to school safely and therefore support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.
American families have indicated time and again in the passage of bond measures across the country that they favor spending on alternative transportation, such as bicycles and mass transit, over spending on mere highway capacity. Americans want real solutions to the economic crisis, not just a band-aid fix. These investments will stimulate our economy now - when it counts and point our nation toward the economic and environmental realities of the future.
Recent transportation surveys indicate that 52% of Americans want to bike more than they do now - but don't, because of the lack of safe and connected bicycle facilities.
Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live less than 5 miles from work, an easy bicycle commute. Already more than 490,000 Americans bike to work; in Portland, 8% of downtown workers are bicycle commuters. Individually, they are saving $1,825 in auto-related costs, reducing their carbon emissions by 128 pounds per year, saving 145 gallons of gasoline, avoiding 50 hours of being stuck in traffic, burning 9,000 calories, reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%, and enjoying 14% fewer claims on their health insurance.
Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. From 2007 - 2008, bicyclists reduced the amount Americans drive by 100 million miles.
Bicycling also has immediate and direct benefits for communities that invest in bicycle paths, bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle parking. For each $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs and between $50 and $100 million in local economic benefits. Some communities are already showing the results of these investments. After investing less than 1% of their total transportation budget in bicycle facilities in the past eight years, the City of Portland has seen a 144% increase in bicycle use - and the growth of a $90 million bicycle industry that has added nearly 50 new businesses in just the past two years.
I can think of no other transportation investment that provides more benefits to American communities who so desperately need: more jobs, reduced transportation costs, increased personal health, a cleaner environment, reduced carbon footprint, and greater community livability. It's time the Republicans got the point about what Americans want. Investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure will help us create jobs and build healthier more livable communities for the future - these projects are the gifts that keep on giving.
Posted February 6, 2009 | 06:44 PM (EST)
No, Seriously: Republicans Don't Get It
With this latest attempt to strip bike funding from the recovery bill, Republicans have once again demonstrated how out of touch they are with their pathologically short-sighted attacks on bicycles. To their detriment, they are continuing their trend from last Congress of using the most economical, energy-efficient, and healthy forms of transportation as their whipping post. Investment in bike paths will not only improve our economy, and take our country in the right direction for the future; it is exactly the kind of investment the American people want.
Moreover, bicycle and pedestrian paths are precisely the kind of infrastructure projects our country needs. These projects tend to the most "shovel-ready" and are more labor-intensive than other projects-- therefore putting more people to work per dollar spent.
We might have understood these attacks a decade ago, but today they ignore the explosion of bicycling in this country in recent years that has been nothing short of phenomenal. There are tens of millions of American cyclists and even more who want their children to be able to bike and walk to school safely and therefore support bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects.
American families have indicated time and again in the passage of bond measures across the country that they favor spending on alternative transportation, such as bicycles and mass transit, over spending on mere highway capacity. Americans want real solutions to the economic crisis, not just a band-aid fix. These investments will stimulate our economy now - when it counts and point our nation toward the economic and environmental realities of the future.
Recent transportation surveys indicate that 52% of Americans want to bike more than they do now - but don't, because of the lack of safe and connected bicycle facilities.
Think about it: More than 50% of working Americans live less than 5 miles from work, an easy bicycle commute. Already more than 490,000 Americans bike to work; in Portland, 8% of downtown workers are bicycle commuters. Individually, they are saving $1,825 in auto-related costs, reducing their carbon emissions by 128 pounds per year, saving 145 gallons of gasoline, avoiding 50 hours of being stuck in traffic, burning 9,000 calories, reducing their risk of heart attack and stroke by 50%, and enjoying 14% fewer claims on their health insurance.
Nationally, if we doubled the current 1% of all trips by bike to 2%, we would collectively save more 693 million gallons of gasoline - that's more than $5 billion dollars - each year. From 2007 - 2008, bicyclists reduced the amount Americans drive by 100 million miles.
Bicycling also has immediate and direct benefits for communities that invest in bicycle paths, bike lanes, trails, and secure bicycle parking. For each $1 million invested in an FHWA-approved paved bicycle or multi-use trail, the local economy gains 65 jobs and between $50 and $100 million in local economic benefits. Some communities are already showing the results of these investments. After investing less than 1% of their total transportation budget in bicycle facilities in the past eight years, the City of Portland has seen a 144% increase in bicycle use - and the growth of a $90 million bicycle industry that has added nearly 50 new businesses in just the past two years.
I can think of no other transportation investment that provides more benefits to American communities who so desperately need: more jobs, reduced transportation costs, increased personal health, a cleaner environment, reduced carbon footprint, and greater community livability. It's time the Republicans got the point about what Americans want. Investments in bike and pedestrian infrastructure will help us create jobs and build healthier more livable communities for the future - these projects are the gifts that keep on giving.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Same Old
Ray LaHood and Changing Our Thinking About Transportation
by ALEX STEFFEN
JANUARY 12, 2009
On Wednesday the 21st, the U.S. Senate will hold a confirmation hearing on the president-elect's choice of Ray LaHood for Secretary of Transportation. No one expects that hearing to be anything but easy for LaHood. That's too bad, because it shows that when it comes to greening the stimulus, we're not only missing the forest for the trees, we're not even seeing the trees right.
In case you haven't been following the news, LaHood is a conservative Illinois Republican with little transportation expertise and almost no administrative experience, who has earned a LCV lifetime voting score on critical environmental issues of 27 percent, and who maintains deep financial connections to the very industries he's now supposed to regulate. He may be no worse than most of those who've lead the Department of Transportation, but his appointment is a profoundly uninspiring vote for business as usual at a time when we need change, and an strong indication that the administration doesn't get that energy policy, technological innovation, urban planning, environmental sustainability and transportation are all bound up together, and no solution to our problems can be had without tackling them all together.
LaHood's appointment is so disappointing to transportation advocates who've been waiting eight years for change, that they're boiling with indignant disbelief, branding him "an unbelievably disastrous pick," "Status quo we can believe in" and "same.gov" (a dig at the Obama transition site, change.gov). As one insider summed it up: "It's a real read-it-and-weep moment."
read it all
by ALEX STEFFEN
JANUARY 12, 2009
On Wednesday the 21st, the U.S. Senate will hold a confirmation hearing on the president-elect's choice of Ray LaHood for Secretary of Transportation. No one expects that hearing to be anything but easy for LaHood. That's too bad, because it shows that when it comes to greening the stimulus, we're not only missing the forest for the trees, we're not even seeing the trees right.
In case you haven't been following the news, LaHood is a conservative Illinois Republican with little transportation expertise and almost no administrative experience, who has earned a LCV lifetime voting score on critical environmental issues of 27 percent, and who maintains deep financial connections to the very industries he's now supposed to regulate. He may be no worse than most of those who've lead the Department of Transportation, but his appointment is a profoundly uninspiring vote for business as usual at a time when we need change, and an strong indication that the administration doesn't get that energy policy, technological innovation, urban planning, environmental sustainability and transportation are all bound up together, and no solution to our problems can be had without tackling them all together.
LaHood's appointment is so disappointing to transportation advocates who've been waiting eight years for change, that they're boiling with indignant disbelief, branding him "an unbelievably disastrous pick," "Status quo we can believe in" and "same.gov" (a dig at the Obama transition site, change.gov). As one insider summed it up: "It's a real read-it-and-weep moment."
read it all
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
