German
Spanish
French
Italian
Portuguese
Japanese
Korean
Russian
ChineseDaily-ish Transit Links Roundup for 6/11/08
Contributed by Fred Camino on June 11th, 2008 at 10:47 am
Image courtesy of machoroboraza.
- Bush and Co. are starving mass transit just when the country needs (and wants) it most.
- A graphical look at the cost of a gallon of gas.
- Expo Phase 3? Eastward to Alhambra.
- Los Angeles home buyers starting to include public transit accessibility among their list of must-have amenities.
- Best reason yet to drive a Hummer: ” “If you get into an accident, nothing will happen to you. You’ll just kill the other person.”
- This one is for the web guys over at Metro. Please read.
Discussion
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
Please keep discussions civil: exercise Troll Controll.
I’ve said it before, the Bush administration’s transportation department is not interested in maintaining our current infrastructure, let alone expanding it. Their essential plan is simple: starve and choke everything until things get so bad that they can force privatization on everything possible. We’re in a crisis because they wanted it that way.
Soon, you won’t have him to kick around any more. Then what?
Then Obama better fund our goddamn trains.
Congress funds the trains.
Remember your checks and balances.
Yes, I know. I just wanted to reply with a snappy comeback to cph’s comment.
Spokker, you’re already more well-versed in civics than maybe three-fourths of the population.
My fellow Americans, let us remember that when we go to the voting booths this November, let’s not ask what our president can do for us, but what our president can do for our country.
How well can our candidates accomplish their goals in concert with the legislative branch? Especially when both of the front-runners are senators and probably will not have the confidence of their colleagues?
It will be interesting regardless of who wins. On the one hand, President Obama will attract attention — rightly so — as his presidency will go hand-in-hand with race relations. Congress is going to have to tread very carefully. Every speech and action will be closely scrutinized, not only for overt racial slurs, but also “code” language. However, savvy congressmen will prey on Obama’s inexperience in the federal legislature and expect him to be weak in his game.
President McCain would be interesting in his own right. McCain’s POW status gives him tremendous military credibility, as well as the adulation he’d get as a respected elder and war veteran. Criticizing him would be akin to treason! Oh, but McCain has his own weakness to worry about. For one thing, members of his own party don’t care for him much. While McCain is a bona fide conservative, he was never regarded as a good team player. The other open secret is that McCain is reported to have a volcanic temper. Democrats might not be strong of spine enough to stare down a war hero, if they gain more seats in the House and Senate this November they’ll subtly turn up the heat to boil his blood.
I’m not voting on personality this year. I’m voting on policy and ideology. Conservatism has failed us in every level under George W. Bush.
I’m voting for a progressive change in direction. It’s long past time for a change.
An Obama presidency would certainly be better for those people like me living a transit oriented lifestyle, with less catering to big oil and more investment in cities, transportation and renewable energy.
Then there’s the economy, environment, health care, the Iraq fiasco, and social inclusion too as a reason I’m voting for Obama this year, in case those things matter.
Whatever McCain’s personal likability, he is unlikely to stand up to big oil or change policy direction, and all the money thrown down the sewer in Iraq is money that is not going into upgrading our transportation and other infrastructure.
Although I fail to see anything conservative about spending $845 billion of tax payer money and over 4,000 young American lives on a war that most of those tax payers are against and that has brought us, well, nothing. Maybe I’m just using an outdated definition of conservative.
Since we’ve gone off-topic, I think that’s fair.
A Barry Goldwater conservative, which was considered a right-wing hardliner in 1964, would be considered a “moderate” in today’s climate. Bob Barr and Ron Paul represent various types of conservatives who are aghast at how Bush, Cheney and the big spending, interventionists, neo-conservatives have hijacked the conservative movement.
The forces of conservatism are currently divided between (1) isolationists and interventionists, (2) supply-siders (Reaganomics) and deficit hawks, (3) social libertarians and religious zealots. In this simplistic model there are six combination of conservatives all fighting amongst each other.
I’m all in favor of giving the Republican party a long period in opposition for it to sort out what conservatism is in the future. Unusually, I think conservatives are more divided that liberals this election. (The divisions between Clinton and Obama supporters were personal, not ideological.)
Actually, with that list you gave me, there could be eight different types of conservative. (Think binary)
It would be interesting, at least, to see what happens if Obama got the top job. It would largely depend, I would think, on what happens with Congress as well, for starters.
I’m not expecting a great big revolution all at once, but what can I say, my crystal ball is in the shop.
That’s right. Who said math wasn’t cool?