Thank God Jim Webb is my Senator.

There are some interesting addict analogies one could use.

I wish I was addicted to freedom. That shit only costs $2.78 a gallon.

http://thesebastards.blogspot.com/

We’ll all have to remember this the next time there is a scandal involving controlled or illicit substances and various members of congress.

You see, Vito Fossella didn’t have a drinking problem, he was just expressing his American need for Freedom!  Patrick Kennedy wasn’t an addict, he was a Freedom Fighter!

Norbizness beat me to it.  Dayam!

Americans are not addicted to oil. Americans are addicted to freedom

That is just hilarious.

the freedom and liberty to move where and when we want.

Explain how this requires MORE oil?

Flying is inefficient for traveling between cities, and yet we are often forced to bear the expense, time, and hassle to do so when trains would do a far better job.  It takes less time to take the train to Philladelphia from Boston than it does to fly - if you count the getting to and from airport bit and the waiting at the airport bit and the overcrowded flights bit.

Cars tend to clump up in events known as traffic jams, and these are double plus most un-free. Ditto for trying to find a place to put your pet vehicle once you arrive at your destination, and pay for it too. Light rail and bicycles solve the freedom problem in these cases quite nicely, and their infrastructure is worth building because these modes are more cost and time efficient.

What bothers me about this whole addiction debate is that it ignores the environmental concerns and privileges a form of transportation that is not affordable for oil.  Even before the gas prices started to skyrocket many Americans were dependent on public transit.  Only the middle class and the rich think that they have God given right to drive at will.  Instead of solely focusing on finding new sources of oil time and money should be invested into improving public transportation.  It would be better for the environment and cheaper in the long run.  It is time to admit that the suburbua bubble has burst and we need to begin to live differently.

As a Virginian, I’m glad Allen continues to make an idiot of himself in public. He could have gone off and “reinvented” himself (or, more precisely, allowed himself to be reinvented by advisors, since he’s dumb as a box of hammers himself) and come back to plague us again. Now with each new idiocy, he reminds everyone that he’s “the Macaca guy” and ensures that he’ll never again achieve anything higher than wingnut welfare.

“Americans are addicted to feeling entitled — the entitlement of doing and buying whatever they feel like without having to bother about the consequences.”

Fixed that for him.

Republicans aren’t addicted to oil. They’re addicted to 20th century technologies.

Americans are addicted to freedom — the freedom and liberty to move where and when we want.

Ah yes.  I like the analogy to a junkie rationalizing his habit that I read elsewhere - he isn’t addicted to heroin, he’s addicted to happiness!

Allen is such a tool.  Too bad there’s a huge constituency of people in this country who feel the same way he does.  If people would just wake up and realize how they’ve become slaves to their automobiles - instead of the other way around -  we might get some decent public transport around here.

And with freedom comes responsibility.

ensures that he’ll never again achieve anything higher than wingnut welfare.

That assumes that there is anything higher in the wingnut world.

George Allen is busy collecting million dollar checks for doing “consulting” work for big Republican law firms in Richmond. He has no further interest in government except for lobbying it.

But it doesn’t matter. He’ll always be Senator Porkchop Macaca.

If America isn’t addicted to oil, but to freedom, and freedom’s just another word for nothin’ left to lose, where does that put us?

<George Allen>The Opoponax, that’s a great question. Now we’re in the midst of a War on Terror, and I grew up in a football family. Remember, my Daddy was coach of the Redskins. And when you’re three points down you better make that field goal. Thank you. </George Allen>

I see, Mister Allen.

So what you’re saying here is that in Soviet Russia, oil is addicted to you.  That explains everything, thank you.

Really, that was essentially his answer to everything in his political career. When he was Governor, he used football metaphors to explain his budget shortfall.

He even said, on Meet the Press during his debate with Webb, that he couldn’t be a racist, because he grew up in a football family.

Americans are addicted to the freedom of buying a house far away from their work, requiring a 1+ hour commute that drastically reduces their quality of life whether they commute by transit or car.

There, that’s better.

And with freedom comes responsibility.

Unless you’re a Republican.  Then you’re free as a bird no matter what you do!

keshmeshi-

Add that they are addicted to having to buy houses in the suburbs if they’re middle class and can’t afford private school, since we refuse to fix the disgusting state of public schools in our cities.

Having good public schools that would let the middle class come back to the cities where they would have shorter trips to everything they need would go a LONG way towards solving the energy crisis.

Ben D—sadly, as long as the white middle-class majority defines a bad school as “a school that black children attend”, this may be problematic.

My son goes to one of the best public schools in the *state*. It is a city school. It is maybe 55%-60% black. There do not appear to be huge numbers of people moving out of the overcrowded school systems in some of the counties into my area so they can have a home convenient to commuting, where there is an excellent school.

Also, it doesn’t help that the jobs have been all moving out to the suburbs. If the *state* planners were willing to take the hit of looking like they were giving too much support to the cities by creating tax incentives for businesses to locate in cities where you can reasonably commute to by public transportation, and not clog the local roads by being located in the suburbs, that would be nifty, but since the tax base for the state has already moved to the suburbs and the suburbanites are louder and more willing to vote, it’s hard to do.

I don’t think it’s racial anymore where I live, because the suburban schools tend to be between 15%-30% black at this point, which is in proportion to their numbers in the metro area population. The black middle class has left, too.

the suburban schools tend to be between 15%-30% black at this point

I once heard about a study done asking white middle class people at what proportion of minorities would they consider their neighborhood “integrated”.  The numbers were almost universally 10-20%. 

A token is OK.  5 black kids in an elementary school class of 30, well, OK, we can handle that.  But when you start getting 40-50%, or even a majority (!!), then suddenly “this neighborhood is really going downhill…”

Ben D,

That is certainly true, but I wonder about the impact of parents not having to waste 2 hours of their lives commuting.  City schools do often underserve their students, but the single most important element in a student’s success is parental involvement.  Maybe two additional hours of parents spending time with their kids, helping them with their homework, etc. wouldn’t make that much of a difference, but it does seem like middle class parents overestimate the impact of schools and underestimate the impact of their own involvement.

hmmm isn’t that the tipping point?

hard issue, as alara pointed out, its very complex and at this point would take a societal shift to solve. I’m not entirely sure how well mass transit would work. I’m from Maine so you do have a lot of towns that are huddled together, little enclaves near what stores, businesses might be there but I just dont see a train being built from Presque Isle to Portland.

That 2 hours might make the difference ben but in the town I’m in now, Augusta Ga, there no longer is an urban center so where to base things out of? Sounds great, I just dont understand how it would happen and I especially dont understand for places like Maine, eastern Washington State, Wyoming, etc.

TO-

What’s more interesting about the “tipping point” is if there are three or more races vs. only two, the tension is reduced dramatically.

The numbers were almost universally 10-20%. 

Oddly enough, that’s the national proportion of blacks in the population.

Schools are often more integrated than their larger communities because non-white children are a higher proportion of all children than non-whites are a proportion of the general population.  This is due to immigration (which is mostly adults of childrearing age) and birth patterns.

It sounds like some people forget how extensive the rail lines used to be in rural areas.  One of my earliest memories is taking the trains to the places in Eastern Oregon and Southern Oregon - rural areas all - where my family lived.  That ended with the passenger rail era.

Presque Isle to Portland, dananddanica?  You might be surprised.  Right now, there is talk of extending the Downeaster run because it is VERY popular.  I know that they added several runs because I live near the line. I sometimes see it come through my community on the same line as a commuter train I take and it is nearly always full these days.  I regularly see it listed as “SOLD OUT” at North Station, particularly now that it stops at UNH.  At one point last summer I wanted to take a ride and it was sold out for the entire day!

As long as there is a rail line, the train can go there.  Sometimes it means upgrades and reviving old lines, but rural areas have NEVER been well served by bus lines that were supposed to replace the rail service and then suffered cut after cut.  Ask an older person about the trains that kept rural areas linked in to the rest of the world - even in Rural Maine and Eastern Washington.  You might learn how it used to be done - and could be done again.

sadly, as long as the white middle-class majority defines a bad school as “a school that black children attend”, this may be problematic.

Signed so hard it’s not even funny.

Like Opoponax said, in a lot of places there’s definately the perception that everything goes to hell when the number of black people gets even close to equal the number of white people.  And the ideas that it might be “dangerous” or that your kids “might fall in with the wrong crowd” often outweigh any possible educational benefit. I was a student at one of the two schools that had more than a 10% black student body (due to some, uh…creative redrawing of the district lines about 20 years earlier) and the common perception was that we were all a bunch of idiots or criminals.

The quality of education was pretty good—I knew how to structure a paper by the time I got to college when most of my freshman class (half of whom had gone to private schools) didn’t—but if people were planning on having kids they made plans to move to a different school district if they could.  I remember overhearing one teacher from a different district joking (during an interdistrict band event) about how he was going one of us to go steal someting for him. Another time one rather gullible girl quite seriously asked me if we actually had knife fights in the halls.

And yes, the other school with a significant African American population got the same “bad school” stigma.  It’s definately still a problem.

I went to a rural school that was 40% black (southside VA) but we never had a “Bad school” reputation. I guess cause we were the only High School in the whole county, and the surrounding counties were just as black.

Statements of fact are now elitist, gotcha George.

*head explodes from incredulity*

Hello,
I love this site.
Kisses, Lisa
generic adipex
http://adipexadipexonl.blog.ijijiji.com

I especially dont understand for places like Maine, eastern Washington State, Wyoming, etc.

What do you think people did before cars were invented?  I mean, that was only a century or so ago (and car culture didn’t become the norm until around WW2).  Do you think people just sat home and starved, for lack of a way to get out to the shops? 

Other countries which are still quite rural and less affluent than the US is still have extensive rail networks, as well as other forms of transportation, both public and private, which work to get people from point A to point B.  I spent 2 months traveling all over India, never had to rent a car, and only rode in a car a few times in major cities.  The trains go everywhere railroads can conceivably go (even up into the Himalayas, which make the Rockies look like a half-assed pile of dirt), and even stop in small towns.  You very much CAN take a train between the equivalent of Bumfuckton, Idaho, and Podunksville, Utah.  Train fares are even state subsidized so as to be affordable for even the poorest people.

And when you get off the train there is a dude who will happily pedal you to your destination on his fucking bike!  If you live in a village where there’s no rail access, the one guy in the village who has so much as a fricking moped will give you a lift.  For everyday needs, most people walk or ride bicycles anywhere they need to go.

I know it’s hard to understand that America isn’t the only country in the world, and that people existed before the SUV and the Super Walmart, exist without them now, and will continue to exist without them after the last Canyonero and Sam’s Club crumble into dust.  But it’s true.

What do you think people did before cars were invented?  I mean, that was only a century or so ago (and car culture didn’t become the norm until around WW2).  Do you think people just sat home and starved, for lack of a way to get out to the shops?

I believe that they worked nearer to their homes.

I spent 2 months traveling all over India, never had to rent a car, and only rode in a car a few times in major cities.

Were you traveling to and from work every day? I’ve never had a drivers license in my life and I once hitch-hiked from Georgia to California with $10 in my pocket but this has little to do with where I live or work and how I travel between them. Well, I guess I never learned to drive because I’ve never needed to drive but my experience hasn’t tempted me to move out to the country somewhere.

And when you get off the train there is a dude who will happily pedal you to your destination on his fucking bike!  If you live in a village where there’s no rail access, the one guy in the village who has so much as a fricking moped will give you a lift.  For everyday needs, most people walk or ride bicycles anywhere they need to go.

So their everyday needs are mostly within walking or biking distance. If you live in a village where there’s no rail access you probably don’t work in a city 50 or 100 miles away unless you own a car or have a reliable way of getting to and from the train, just like here in America. Hence the discussion of suburban sprawl and public transportation. Right?

I think your snark is a bit misplaced here.

My point is that not every country in the world relies on a suburban car-scale infrastructure which expects people to commute 100 miles a day by car. 

In fact the US, Canada, and Australia are pretty much it in terms of that arrangement.

So the idea that railways can simply NEVER penetrate into rural areas—bullshit.  The idea that suburban and exburban areas can’t be served by public transit—bullshit. 

The idea of the suburb, the SUV, the big box store, and the 2 hour commute is a very, very recent idea, and one that is not destined to last very much longer.

The idea of the suburb, the SUV, the big box store, and the 2 hour commute is a very, very recent idea, and one that is not destined to last very much longer.

Yeah, I agree with all of that comment, I guess I just found your rant jarring in the context of the comment you quoted (but entertaining, as usual).

Unless we somehow bring back the family farm (which sounds swell to me) it seems like it would be tough to serve rural people’s everyday needs with rail. But I know fuck all about rural life so I’ll leave that discussion to someone else.

We could easily serve peoples needs with rail, most definetely, in 1)the Northeast megalopolis, 2) around to Gulf Coast , 3) around the Great Lakes, and 4) the west coast. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but that’s a hell of a lot of people covered right there.

I am all for rail moving in to the sucking vacuum being left by air.

I mean, if you can spend 12 hours waiting for a flight, or stuck on the tarmac without food or being allowed to go to the bathroom, for the privilege of being stuck in a tiny little box for 2 hours where they don’t even serve you peanuts any more and you weren’t allowed to bring on your own water and they can cancel your trip because your kid keeps saying “Bye-bye plane”... or spend the same 12 hours on a comfortable ride, on a vehicle where you can get up and stretch your feet whenever you want, where you weren’t treated as a criminal before you got on, and you were permitted to bring as much luggage as you could carry… who the fuck would ever want to fly in a plane again?

I’m biased—my husband is legally blind, so the more rail, the more he can get around without my help. But I wanted to take rail instead of a plane from Atlanta to New York when I lived there in 1992, and I’ve *always* preferred rail to plane, since I have to go to the bathroom frequently, I have sugar issues that require regular meals, and I *strongly* dislike crowds or people pressing in on me. Rail is sometimes so crowded that you have that issue, but I’ll bet it’s not a problem on reserved-car rail like the Acela.

With four kids, it’s never in my economic interest to take a rail trip anywhere I could go by car instead—four kids costs the same to transport by car as just myself—but if rail could substitute for *planes*, it would be awesome. I’d take the train to the West Coast to see my brother in San Francisco and bring my whole family along if they had an Acela-type line so the trip would take 2 days instead of 3 or 4.

So right now, I’m going to law school in San Diego, CA - cuz that’s where I was accepted.

My spouse lives in our house in Las Vegas, NV - because that’s where her job is, a job that pays her well enough and allows me to be on her health insurance at a reasonably low price. And she can’t get an equivalent job in SD - that job doesn’t exist in this county.

Driving between LV and SD takes around 5 hours 15 minutes.

Flying, when factoring driving to the airport, getting there early, the actual flight time, and the drive on the other end, takes about 3-1/3 hours (4 if you have to rent a vehicle on the SD end - not worth it; might as well just drive my own car).

And here’s the fun with public transport for that very same trip:

On Greyhound, LV to SD can run anywhere from 7 hours 55 minutes to 10 hours 35 minutes, depending on schedule and route. Add to that time to get to / from the station at either end.

As for taking the train, well, there is no commuter train service out of / into LV. Period. In order to take the train into SD from LV, one would have to drive to Victorville, CA, a 3 hour trip. Then catch the train - which doesn’t go from their to SD; rather to LA - add 4 hours. Then from LA to SD - add 2 hours 45 minutes. Then tack on another 30 or so minutes getting from the SD station to my apartment. Looks like the train (plus driving) runs 10 hours 15 minutes. The return trip is even more convoluted.

And having driven through vast, desolate, rocky parts of the south and southwest, I must respectfully disagree with my fellow Tidewaterian Ben D. (Newport News) that rail can effectively serve these areas. Right now, that’s a lot of track to lay.

And unfortunately in CA, the commuter trains run on the same lines freight trains run. Big accident this past week in LA.

I think I’ll stick to driving or flying b/w LV and SD for the time being . . .

Unless we somehow bring back the family farm (which sounds swell to me) it seems like it would be tough to serve rural people’s everyday needs with rail.

Two things here.

Firstly, only a very small proportion of Americans actually live in genuinely rural areas anymore.  If it turns out that people way out in the country need to have some sort of fast and cheap personal transport, well, OK.  Maybe with hybrid or electric technology, or some other new thing we haven’t discovered yet. 

That knocks out like 10% of the USA.  And most people who live in rural areas don’t commute hours upon hours to work in a city, anyway—they just need to get around town.

What we’re really talking about here are suburban and exurban areas.  And history and geography have shown time and time again that, yes, it is in fact possible to provide transportation alternatives in those places.  New York City had “the burbs” long before the car was invented, and even nowadays you can commute in by train, and a great many people do. 

I’ll repeat—the US is a distinct minority in the approach that life simply cannot be lived without access to a car.  The rest of the world is doing it*.  Why can’t we?

* And remember, of course, that the US is not the only big country, is not the only country with a lot of wide open spaces, is not the only country with intense geographical features, is not the only country with cold winters, etc. etc. etc.

I must respectfully disagree with my fellow Tidewaterian Ben D. (Newport News) that rail can effectively serve these areas.

Other countries have managed to create public transportation networks that serve far more mountainous and desert-like areas.

People who think that cars are the only way to deal with big spaces or challenging geographical features need to go visit other parts of the world, pronto.  Every other country can do this.  Why can’t we?

I still can’t believe that there’s no train that runs between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.  Talk about a cash cow, especially if you include a bar in the dining car.  The damn thing would pay for itself within two years.

But rail travel is making me nervous right now.  One of my coworkers rides that same train route where 25 people were just killed (though, fortunately, he drove to work that day).  Why don’t we have separate tracks for freight and passenger trains, again?

Unless we somehow bring back the family farm (which sounds swell to me) it seems like it would be tough to serve rural people’s everyday needs with rail.

Well, we managed it pretty well in the UK in the 19th Century… Of course, that was back when villages had shops.

Hi, Mnem!

There used to be one, AFAIK. And I believe that line also ran on the freight lines. Spooky I agree, especially in light of last week’s accident (not that such a thing couldn’t happen with only commuter lines). If there were a line between LV and SD you bet I’d at least consider taking it. Cost and time would of course be a factor.

When I lived in Brooklyn, once I got used to it I loved taking the train (subway) - it went everywhere I wanted to go in NYC and NJ, it was incredibly inexpensive, and man did I read a lot of novels back and forth on my daily commute to 66th street.

I’d love to have a commuter station near our house in NW Vegas that would quickly, conveniently, inexpensively, and easily connect me to a train to San Diego. Right now, doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to unfortunately.

Makes me sad, but I’ll still make the drive tomorrow afternoon.

Well, we managed it pretty well in the UK in the 19th Century… Of course, that was back when villages had shops.

And the area of the UK is about 93,788 square miles.

That falls between the area of the US states of Minnesota at 86,943 square miles and Michigan at 96,810 square miles.

And we have different systems of government, and issues that, in my opinion, needlessly complicate getting the US to a position of providing more public transportation options.

That falls between the area of the US states of Minnesota at 86,943 square miles and Michigan at 96,810 square miles.

Please explain why, if the mainland UK is the size of Michigan, why can’t Michigan be fully covered by rail access?

Or, more directly, consider that even in huge countries like Russia and China, the best way to get around the country (even from town to town, and especially in remote areas) is via train.  If people in Siberia and the Gobi Desert can just hop a train to the next town, why can’t we?

Why don’t you maybe cogitate on it and post why you think so and what the obstacles are instead of reading advocacy and positions into my comments that aren’t there and then picking fights with me based on what you think is underlying whatever benign comment(s) I write.

Thanks.

1.  I’m not picking fights with you.  I’m discussing something civilly on a blog.  The fact that someone doesn’t agree with you and has the NERVE to express same does not mean they are picking a fight.  If you don’t want to hear that the US is in need of more public transit, and that those needs could be met quite easily if only oil companies didn’t own our government, you should probably not spend too much time lurking around liberal blogs. 

2.  It’s really hard to assume that you’re not advocating any particular position when you say things that seem to, well, advocate a position.  When I read something like “comprehensive public transit systems are unlikely to ever exist in the US”, my only assumptions are:

A) this person doesn’t think public transit should be a priority

or B) this person is an imbecile who has never left southern California

Which would you rather?  The charitable one (this person apparently has an opinion on the matter.  I may disagree with that opinion but he has a right to it) or the uncharitable one (fracking moron…)?

One. I did not write this: “comprehensive public transit systems are unlikely to ever exist in the US”.

You’re either (1) quoting someone else, or (2) blithely misquoting me. If the latter, I stand by my opinion that you’re picking a fight.

Two. To your “charitable” opinion, that I don’t “think public transit should be a priority”, here’s what I actually wrote:

If there were a line between LV and SD you bet I’d at least consider taking it.

And also:

once I got used to it I loved taking the train (subway) - it went everywhere I wanted to go in NYC and NJ, it was incredibly inexpensive, and man did I read a lot of novels back and forth on my daily commute to 66th street.

And also:

I’d love to have a commuter station near our house in NW Vegas that would quickly, conveniently, inexpensively, and easily connect me to a train to San Diego. Right now, doesn’t exist and isn’t likely to unfortunately. Makes me sad [...] [emphasis added to aid reader’s comprehension].

Meaning: Unfortunately, a commuter rail line between where I live in Vegas and my school apartment in SD does not exist at present, and in my opinion is unlikely to exist in the future. Not meaning by any rational meaning that “comprehensive public transit systems are unlikely to ever exist in the US”.

LV + SD != the US.

Commuter rail line b/w LV & SD != comprehensive public transit.

And also:

And having driven through vast, desolate, rocky parts of the south and southwest, I must respectfully disagree with my fellow Tidewaterian Ben D. (Newport News) that rail can effectively serve these areas. Right now, that’s a lot of track to lay.

Meaning, you know, that right now laying said track would be difficult to do. Not meaning by any rational reading that it’s an idea that should not ever ever ever be explored and developed.

And also:

[snip] And we have different systems of government, and issues that, in my opinion, needlessly complicate getting the US to a position of providing more public transportation options.

Three. Your snideness, it’s really civil. Pat yourself on the back some more (I know you’re just dying to) for how civil you are. Isn’t it satisfying to point out to people how civil you are?

I find it hard to accept that there is any way you could possibly suggest concluding I’m a “fracking moron” and I am “an imbecile who has never left southern California” when clearly I wrote:

My spouse lives in our house in Las Vegas, NV.

Meaning we (which includes me) live in Nevada.

And also:

my fellow Tidewaterian Ben D. (Newport News)

You seem not to understand that construction. Ben D. is “my fellow Tidewaterian” because I grew up in Newport News. Both are in the Tidewater area of Virginia where he now lives, as do my parents and scores of relatives.

And also:

When I lived in Brooklyn

You know, New York City? In New York state? I lived there, both in Brooklyn and also in Cooperstown. Twice. I’ve also lived in Connecticut, New Mexico, Georgia, Florida, and northern California, FWIW.

Four. I’m not entirely certain, after re-reading all of my 4 posts on this topic, how one could conclude that I don’t “think public transit should be a priority.”

The least one could conclude is that I’ve really liked public transport when I’ve been able to use it and would like to see more of it; however, I did observe that right now, it is unfortunate that public transport does not currently exist in the areas of the country I discussed as things stand in our government at present, there are many obstacles in the way of and that needlessly complicate implementing public transport everywhere it does not currently exist. In no way do those observations lead one to the inexorable conclusion that I think public transport should not be a priority.

Five. I honestly don’t give a flying fuck if you disagree with me or not. I simply don’t see how you can conclude that you actually do.

Which is why this: “Please explain why, if the mainland UK is the size of Michigan, why can’t Michigan be fully covered by rail access?” came across as picking a fight. Your demand to provide you with an answer makes no sense (I don’t owe you explanations for things I didn’t assert and don’t subscribe to), your demand simply does not follow from what I wrote in that particular post, and yes, your demand is confrontational.

Five(a) I’m not going to defend a position I do not hold, merely because you think said position is one I hold.

Six. If you think I’m (1) not a liberal and (2) have never commented here before, you’re even dumber than I thought.

[Straw-teac], you should probably not spend too much time lurking around liberal blogs.

Also, this?

Which would you rather?  The charitable one (this person apparently has an opinion on the matter.  I may disagree with that opinion but he has a right to it)

teac != “he”.