|   study: US vs. European cycling commuters | Hollywood
Sep 10, 2003 8:37 AM | | I'll get to reading this once I clean up the white donut powder that spilled all over my floormats on the drive in this morning.
http://evworld.com/databases/storybuilder.cfm?storyid=568 |
| fewer children riding bikes | george_da_trog
Sep 10, 2003 9:08 AM | | I like that last line where it talks about fewer children riding bikes. Do helmet laws have anything to do with that? When you see pictures of people riding around europe in a utilitarian way, you don't often see them wearing helmets.
george |
| Exactly never. | Fast Eddy
Sep 10, 2003 10:32 AM | |
When I was in Belgium, everyone was riding the extensive network of bike paths, and I saw exactly no one wearing a helmet. I was there for a week.
Plenty of mini skirts though. Yum. |
| Ask yourself - what's more dangerous: | Biking Viking
Sep 10, 2003 10:52 AM | | Living sedate life or riding a bike without a helmet?
Geir (living in a European country with relatively high helmet use factor) |
| heart disease | george_da_trog
Sep 11, 2003 7:14 AM | | Isn't heart disease the number one killer in the US?
george |
| Spatial distribution of land uses | Jrm
Sep 10, 2003 11:40 AM | | Residential, retail and instiutional land use are growing further part from each other as land is developed inthe suburban model. Land developed in this model is likely not to have contigous bike facilities that are safe and usable because most of the development in this model is automobile orietated.
Also due to technological advances in transportation systems and automobiles large distances can be covered without excessive costs of time and convienance where traveliing by bike fails in comparison. |
| Segway to the rescue! | Gazz
Sep 10, 2003 12:39 PM | | Or maybe not (I think it has a weight limit of 300 pounds...) There needs to be a special heavy-duty SUV version for Joe Cheeseburger.
I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of traffic planners and engineers ride bikes (compared to the average). |
| I like those electric scooters... | Jrm
Sep 11, 2003 6:57 AM | | But your focked if you run outta juice. As a planner I ride cuz i like to first. and because im a planner second. Theres just so much more to see on a bike in a city. Another reason is that taking the bus around here sucks and parking is expensive. |
| okay let's be fair... ! | phatlizard
Sep 10, 2003 10:13 AM | | I live in a Germany town with 60.000 people - I live on the citylimits but only have to walk one mile to the city center! The malls are actually in the city-center, all the schools are 10 minute walking distance and the public-transportation-system is in existance - a bus in every direction every 15 minutes! |
| a town of 60 gets a mall and a bus system???? | george_da_trog
Sep 10, 2003 10:16 AM | | Just making a period vs comma joke. Carry on.
george |
| Well we even have our own numbers!!! (nm) | phatlizard
Sep 10, 2003 12:32 PM | | |
| Commuting it the States | The Truth
Sep 10, 2003 11:04 AM | | As a regular commuter to work 13 miles each way. I can totally see where this information is correct. Some days it feels like I risk my life to and from work. If it isn't cars and trucks, its potholes and poorly designed intersections. As an example, part of my commute to work uses an interurban trail (rails to trails stuff). Its very nice but they ripped out the parking lot and end portion of the trail to increase the size of a nearby intersection. So now the trail ends in an extremely busy intersection instead of a parking lot. Sorry for the rant but this article just made me stop and think how hard it is being a cyclist in the States. Well back to work and I'm still looking forward to getting on the bike and heading home tonight.
TT |
| urban form | Zaphod
Sep 10, 2003 11:27 AM | | Our country is crap in terms of cycling infrastructure. I've lived and visited the most bike friendly areas (San Fran, Berkeley, Boulder, Eugene, Portland) and they're pretty amazing. Then I visit other areas on business or whatever and it's oftentimes grim. I try to rent a bike if possible and sort out the best routes to the client site. The efforts in trying to sort this out are exhausting and I've certainly questioned my sanity when in a 35 zone with everyone doing 60mph and occasionally honking.
& contrary to the article, sprawl is one of the most significant issues/problems with cycling being a viable mode for the average commuter (vs. cycling addict). Most people will ride a couple of miles but will the average person commute over 10?
Not to get all high horsey but why the f*** doesn't *every* road that's not a limited access freeway/highway have a decent shoulder or a dedicated bike lane? It's cyclists getting the shaft.
Zaphod |
| Inflamatory Rant | Singletrack Pig
Sep 10, 2003 11:46 AM | | I was in bed last night reading an article in Outside mag from a few months back. It was about the amazing progress the Netherlands has made in reducing pollution, increasing the health of the population and doing so while growing their economy and GDP.
I am a relatively new father and am finding that I truly worry about what kind of future awaits my little boy. I have always been pretty green- I worked as a lobbyist and advocate for alternative transportation and energy here in the Colorado State Legislature. I used to think I could change things for the better if I could just show people that small steps can yield decent results. Those results can then snowball into bigger and better things. Blah blah blah.
Now I see that most people just don't give a damn. As long as they are comfortable and told that everything is OK, they are happy. "Oh don't worry about global climate change, that's just something those wacko enviros dreamed up to scare you". "Oh don't worry about spending another $87 BILLION on Iraq, if you love your freedom, you will suck it up". "Oh don't worry that we are taking away your civil liberties- the very thing our forefathers fought and died to protect- because we really know whats best for you.
And on and on and on.
Every day I wake up and hear about another disappointing choice our leadership has made. I hope we eventually wake up and see what is really going on.
I am sure many folks disagree with me and thats fine. Thats what makes America great. Its just a question of what we want America to be. How we chose to use the enormous wealth and power we collectively wield. Right now, we aren't using those resources for the greater good. That bothers me.
I need a ride. |
| Oink. Right on. | Murphy
Sep 10, 2003 12:25 PM | | Couldn't have said it better myself.
Too bad most of the mountain bike community, including 80% of the frequenters of this forum, is composed of yuppy suburbanites who drive suvs on their daily commute to work and to haul their bike 8 miles to the trail head. They use the same suvs to go 1/2 mile to the grocery and 5.5 miles to the mall. They also bought a house 20 miles from their place of employment because they could get an extra 1500 square feet for the same price as a house 3 miles from their work.
If any of that sounds like you (reader of this rant), step back and do a reality check, then actually make a change in your life. |
| Oink. Right on. | Singletrack Pig
Sep 10, 2003 12:40 PM | | I fully expected to get jumped on. Glad some folks agree with me. Lets start a movement. |
| Oink. Right on. | Andrew Sherman
Sep 10, 2003 2:16 PM | | Count me in...but I have one short rant. I'm really tired of all these commuters riding their 5000 bikes 8 miles to work. Sure atleast they arent driving, but you can't really rip on those who drive their mtn bikes 10 miles when people won't ride a few miles to work and other places unless they have a topnotch bike. Personally, I say grab and old track or road frame and you've got yourself a commuter.
Andrew |
| I call total bullshi</i>t on that one. | Biking Viking
Sep 10, 2003 2:24 PM | | These days I work out of my home so I'm not commuting, but when I lived in California, I rode my $4K+ roadbike to work - 4.5 miles each way.
If I have a nice bike - Why shouldn't I be allowed to ride it to work?
Geir |
| agreed, sort of | laffeaux
Sep 10, 2003 4:10 PM | | I often commute on a farily nice bike (Ultegra equipped) when I'm riding from work to home and back. At work I can bring my bike inside and leave it near my desk all day. However, if I plan on running other errands and locking my bike for unknown periods of time in various places, I take my beater bike. I don't like worrying when I'm in the grocery store if my "good" bike will be there when I leave. My beater bike is hardly worth the effort to steal once it has my cheap cable lock on it.
So who cares what a commuter rides? As long as it's a bike great. |
| Yes, but that wasn't Sherman's point (nm) | Biking Viking
Sep 10, 2003 4:18 PM | | |
| very true (nm) | laffeaux
Sep 10, 2003 4:35 PM | | |
| what if we have both? | Hollywood
Sep 10, 2003 3:44 PM | | I have a nice DeRosa w/DuraAce and a beater '84 Trek that I bought for $100 and converted to a fixed gear. Both get used for commuting / errand duties.
I've never heard of anyone
i not
riding anywhere "unless they have a top notch bike".
That'll do Pig, sign me up for The Movement!
Jeff |
| Preachy enviro-wackos make me laugh. | Pete.
Sep 10, 2003 3:02 PM | | Aren't stereotypes grand? |
| more stereotypes | fut
Sep 10, 2003 4:20 PM | | US commuters are bearded critical mass weirdos on fendered bikes and students with no $.
Euro commuters are old ladies with a bag of groceries and 3-speeders on their way to the train station. |
| Right now ,we are'nt using those resources for the greater good. | jasonwa
Sep 10, 2003 7:52 PM | | I Disagree, We have a president who is doing something about our security.This president is not a worldly person.He is a godly person trying to survive in a worldly world if that makes any sense to anyone.The last president just wanted to makes us smile.Believe me,He did.He gave us lots to talk about.Yes i agree, our civil liberties are being violated and it is a disgrace .It is a price we pay for this time of age. I would not trust our lost liberties(private phone calls if that's what you are refering too) to any other administration.So i guess i am confused on the issue.Asking for 87 billion in iraq? yeah it does'nt make me smile either,but i respect our president and understand. |
| how 'bout making it <i>86</i> billion, and... | Hollywood
Sep 10, 2003 10:32 PM | | divying up a bil for improved commuting. 87 billion and I have to sweat whether that car is gonna clip me or not because bike lanes are expensive. OK I'm getting greedy now, call it 500 million to bike path/lane efforts and we're cool.
bombs away,
HW |
| 1 billion? | george_da_trog
Sep 11, 2003 7:29 AM | | because 999 million would be spent on talking about bike paths by commissions and other study groups and the last million would go closing off dirt trials.
george |
| <i>sigh</i> | Hollywood
Sep 11, 2003 8:42 AM | | "our billion dollar study has shown that cyclists are actually better off driving their bikes to one of the many wonderful paved recreation areas that our country has to offer. Riding a bicycle to work instead of driving can be dangerous and uses up less oil, er, I mean, uses oil that can get your pants dirty. That's what I meant to say." |
| Those who would forgo liberty to obtain security deserve neither | Drewdane
Sep 11, 2003 8:31 AM | | I think it was Ben Franklin who said that (or something very similar).
BTW, if George Bush is godly, then I'll take secularism, thank you very much. |
| Those who would forgo liberty to obtain security deserve neither | george_da_trog
Sep 11, 2003 9:24 AM | | That quote applies to many things, including universal health care and all the other nanny state (aka Big Mother) programs that liberals find so necessary.
george |
| well said | laffeaux
Sep 11, 2003 9:48 AM | | We lose a few freedoms, a lot of people die, and no problems are actually resolved. Sounds "godly" to me. |
| Timely post I'm reading on 9/11 | Steve-O
Sep 11, 2003 5:11 AM | | Just got around to reading your post today. Here's a quick collections of thoughts from an e-mail newsletter I get...
9/11 anniversary thoughts - For what it's worth
As we arrive at the second anniversary of 9/11, we must stop to think about what is happening here. In the words of Buffalo Springfield's 1967 song, For what it's worth.
There's somethin' happening here,
What it is ain't exactly clear.
There's a man with a gun over there,
Tellin' me I gotta beware.
I think it's time we stop,
Hey, what's that sound?
Everybody look what's going down.
The world changed forever on 9/11. Two years after, the date must give us pause. There's something happenin' here...
Have we caught Osama bin Laden, the arch-villain behind the atrocity? No. Instead we went out and subdued Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet bin Laden and the Taliban are still there. Just today, his new video tape warned of more terror.
Have we caught the Anthrax killer, who supposedly had the same evil intentions? No, we've kinda forgotten that. Instead, obedient to the President's personal obsession, we went after Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq. Have we found Saddam? No, though we paid a $30m reward and killed his two sons.
We were told that Saddam had WMD. Will we ever find the WMD? Not likely. The rhetoric has now shifted to "WMD programs" and even those references have almost disappeared.
The Iraqi war was declared over within days. In his aircraft carrier photo-op, the President proclaimed "Mission accomplished!" and "We have prevailed!" Up to that time, 139 Americans were dead. More than that number have died since, with even more casualties mounting almost every day. And disgracefully, no one even speaks about the number of dead Iraqis, estimated at over 10,000. Similarly, little was ever said about more than 2,000,000 dead Vietnamese.
America chose to attack Iraq. Terror attacks now occur there because we are there. What was sold to the Congress and the US public as WMD and freedom for the Iraqi people, is now being re-sold as "the central war on terror". Should we believe that we are somehow safer now?
During this 9/11 anniversary week, with the US in the throes of a "jobless recovery", President Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion (this year's budget) to fund the war. The present record deficit will now jump to an even higher record deficit, approaching $600 billion. With 140,000 US troops now in Iraq, the Bush administration admits that a similar number will likely remain a year hence.
I really don't understand! Polls show that President Bush's approval rating has "dropped" to 49%. Who are these 49% who still support this man after his succession of mistakes, mis-steps and mis-handling that goes on and on and on?
The pragmatic answer: There are many people who prefer to not think, to not make the effort to know, who feel that patriotism implies blind loyalty to the President. Open debate and criticism of the war are labeled "un-American"; those who disagree are called "traitors". Refreshingly, Newsweek suggests that perhaps it is time for a new kind of patriotism (see weblink below).
Now finally, the Presidential candidates are voicing their strong opinions. Are they "un-American"? Are they "traitors"? They make the criticisms I made some months ago in eNews now seem like milk toast. My previous comments brought a hailstorm of "damned liberal" epithets. I'd like to hear from those people again - I'd like to understand. And please, don't tell me to "stick to automation".
But stop! Today is 9/11/2003. It's 2 years later. Has the risk of terrorism increased, or decreased, because of Afghanistan and Iraq? Egypt's friendly President Hosni Mubarak warned: "The war in Iraq will create hundreds more bin Ladens!" Has it?
Democracy means that the buck ultimately stops with us, the voters. We must face facts, accept personal responsibility, and do whatever we can as individual citizens. Now is the time. |
| voters? It's rigged... | clary.
Sep 11, 2003 7:09 AM | | http://www.counterpunch.org/fitrakis09082003.html
September 8, 2003
The Voting-Machine Industrial Complex
Demonstration Democracy
By BOB FITRAKIS
During the Cold War, the CIA, in the words of long-time agent Ralph McGehee, practiced the art of "deadly deceits." Throughout the Third World, the secret spy agency engaged in covert operations, blatant acts of economic destabilization and wanton acts of mass violence.
In the 1970s, Idaho Senator Frank Church's investigatory committee established that the CIA also engaged in so-called "benign" operations including rigging elections. The agency used the term "demonstration elections"--elections that are superficially democratic but the results manipulated by the CIA.
The Company did everything from stuffing ballot boxes, creating political parties, merging smaller political parties into large coalitions as in Uno in Nicaragua, paying death squads to intimidate voters and the occasional use of computer fraud. In the mid-80s, the Reagan and Bush administration used a computer to help their "man in Panama" and CIA asset Manuel Noriega gain electoral support; they backed dictator Ferdinand Marcos when he brought in the pre-programmed election tapes in the middle of an election to turn his sure defeat into a fixed victory. The people of the Philippines didn't accept the computer results as credible, but Reagan and Bush argued it was necessary to preserve our "traditional" relationship with the brutal dictator. Remember, his political opponent, Senator Aquino was shot to death after disembarking from an airplane to run against Marcos.
Now that we have the son of the former CIA director as President, we should recognize that the more reprehensible tactics of the CIA have been brought home with the Bush dynasty. What George Bush's energy friends from Texas, including Enron, did to the California economy through the massive "mega-watt" laundering of energy should be viewed as just another economic destabilization of an enemy regime.
In the Houston area, two Republican U.S. representatives were declared winners in the last election until it was discovered that the results were caused by a "faulty" and Republican-friendly microchip. When the proper chip was installed in the computerized voting machine the correct results were revealed: two Democratic victories.
The 2000 Florida election included all of the signs of a Third World CIA demonstration election. Bizarrely constructed butterfly ballots, obscure third parties receiving unexplained and unfathomable votes and heavily Jewish areas voting unexpectedly for right-wing nationalistic anti-Semitic candidates like Pat Buchanan. Remember that the exit polls predicted that Gore would win. Only when the psych-ops operation at Fox News changed that call did some people begin to believe in the myth of the Bush victory.
What began as covert operations in the Third World are now overt practices by the Bush administration in the United States.
Take for example the August 14 letter from Walden O'Dell, Chief Executive of Diebold, Inc., pledging that he is "committed to helping Ohio deliver its votes to the President next year." Diebold is one of three finalists currently seeking $100 million contract with the state of Ohio to provide computerized voting machines for the 2004 elections. Diebold has worked on its computers with Battelle, a well-established collaborator with the U.S. military and CIA. Computer scientists from John Hopkins indicated that it would be relatively easy to hack into and manipulate the computer voting results in these machines.
The Seattle Times ran a feature story on Diebold in their August 21 edition. Bev Harris, a Seattle-area public relations company owner, recently uncovered "some 4000 files that included user manuals, source code and an executable files for voting machines made by Diebold, a corporation based in North Canton, Ohio."
Jason Leopold recently wrote a revealing article on this issue that you can read here. A detailed anaylsis of the flaws in Diebold's electronic voting machines can be found at www.scoop.co.nz.
So, what do we have here other than the obvious denial by mainstream America? We've got a CIA family, their corporate supporters working with CIA contractors at Battelle in order to bring flawed electronic voting to the U.S. with no paper trails and questionable exit polls. Recall that Battelle was also the contractor for Voter News Service (VNS) and failed to produce exit polls for the 2002 Congressional election.
Factor in the reality that, out of 435 Congressional districts in the U.S., only 39, or 9%, are actually competitive (when major party candidates won with less than 55% of the vote). Under our political system, also, the vast majority of Congressional seats are gerrymandered as "safe" or noncompetitive districts by the party that controls the state government. Eleven Texas Democrats are hiding out in New Mexico in hopes of thwarting another round of Republican district-rigging in their state. So little democracy is actually left.
Over the years, well-known and respected political theorists and leaders have warned of the rise of authoritarianism. In the 50s, U.S. President Eisenhower warned of the "military-industrial complex." C. Wright Mills detailed the "power elite"--the convergence of the top levels of the military, corporations and governmental leaders during the Cold War. In the 60s, Herbert Marcuse, who worked for the Office of Strategic Services (OSS) in WWII, pointed out that Americans' inability to think critically was making us a "one-dimensional" society with an authoritarian culture. In the 70s, political scientists like William Domhoff and Thomas Dye began to document empirically the undemocratic and elitist nature of the U.S. political system. In the 80s, Bertrand Gross warned of the rise of "friendly fascism." In the 90s, William Grieder documented that the U.S. had the best democracy money can buy and asked the question, "Who will tell the people?"
But the most damning and lasting testimony that foretold the rise of America's new authoritarian demonstration democracy are still the massive volumes produced by the Church Committee. Back in the late 70s, the Agency's shadowy hands were all over the Idaho ABC Committee (Anybody but Church). Bush's election coup of 2000, our first obvious CIA-style demonstration election, gave the Bush clan and their friends in the CIA the opportunity to field test whether or not you can blatantly steal an election in the U.S. just like Panama or the Philippines. The 9-11 attacks provided Bush, Jr. with the authority to push U.S. society massively to the right and pursue militarism and imperialism. It also allowed Bush to test market neo-Nazi-style mass propaganda to the American public.
The voting machines are simply the final nail in the people's coffin. The comatose electorate rests silently as the hammer of authoritarianism falls.
Bob Fitrakis is a professor at Columbus State Community College and an editor of the Free Press. |
| let the flame wars begin!!! | george_da_trog
Sep 11, 2003 8:50 AM | | Have we caught Osama bin Laden, the arch-villain behind the atrocity? No. Instead we went out and subdued Afghanistan, one of the poorest countries in the world. Yet bin Laden and the Taliban are still there. Just today, his new video tape warned of more terror.
One of the poorest countries in the world was given the chance to turn over OBL and choose not to. Never forget they were warned and given the chance to be part of the solution and not part of the problem. Did you happen to hear how now more children are being immunized than ever before, woman can be educated, people have a hope for a better life. Oh, there was ANOTHER terrorist threat. I guess the war on terrorism continues. Isn't that want Bush said?
Have we caught the Anthrax killer, who supposedly had the same evil intentions? No, we've kinda forgotten that. Instead, obedient to the President's personal obsession, we went after Saddam Hussein and occupied Iraq. Have we found Saddam? No, though we paid a $30m reward and killed his two sons.
Didn't they just drain a pond looking for evidence in that case? Seems to be they're still working on it. How many years did it take to catch the unibomber? Who knows what the Anthrax killers intentions were? He hasn't been caught yet has he. Maybe due to the timing it was assumed that the actions were related? When planes slam into buildings and then within a few weeks Anthrax arrives in the mail wouldn't you make the same assumption? I did. Two years later, I don't know, but isn't that what hindsight is all about?
We were told that Saddam had WMD. Will we ever find the WMD? Not likely. The rhetoric has now shifted to "WMD programs" and even those references have almost disappeared.
What I especially like, is how Bush got the UN, France, Germany, England, the previous Clinton Administration all to cooperate with his world domination plan. How brilliant must Bush be to manipulate Bill and Hillary to state that Saddam had WMD's BEFORE Bush was even president. It all falls into his plan for world domination. Bush is the Brain, you must be Pinky.
The Iraqi war was declared over within days. In his aircraft carrier photo-op, the President proclaimed "Mission accomplished!" and "We have prevailed!" Up to that time, 139 Americans were dead. More than that number have died since, with even more casualties mounting almost every day. And disgracefully, no one even speaks about the number of dead Iraqis, estimated at over 10,000. Similarly, little was ever said about more than 2,000,000 dead Vietnamese.
He declared the end of major military operations. That's pretty accurate. What we prevailed in was removing Saddam from power... thus we prevailed. 10,000 dead? Did you get that number from the same place where Ms Gerafalo was talking about the million dead that would come from this war? People also fail to mention about the other 2million killed by Pol Pot after the communists fully took over the whole area.
America chose to attack Iraq. Terror attacks now occur there because we are there. What was sold to the Congress and the US public as WMD and freedom for the Iraqi people, is now being re-sold as "the central war on terror". Should we believe that we are somehow safer now?
There were multiple reason for the attack, one was the WORLD view that they posses WMD's. Another was the fact that there were 13 UN resolutions that Iraq had to comply with and hadn't, another was the Cease Fire Agreement signed with the US at the end of the first Gulf War with they again failed to comply with. Each and any was reason enough to go in.
During this 9/11 anniversary week, with the US in the throes of a "jobless recovery", President Bush has asked Congress for $87 billion (this year's budget) to fund the war. The present record deficit will now jump to an even higher record deficit, approaching $600 billion. With 140,000 US troops now in Iraq, the Bush administration admits that a similar number will likely remain a year hence.
I really don't understand! Polls show that President Bush's approval rating has "dropped" to 49%. Who are these 49% who still support this man after his succession of mistakes, mis-steps and mis-handling that goes on and on and on?
I really don't understand how people had such fondness for a president that, kept 1000's of fbi files on political enemies, bombed pharmaceutical companies to distract the media, violently raped a woman in an arkansas hotel room, hide piles of evidence after the suicide of his lawyer, use his presidential powers to to subvert the judicial process, use the irs to audit non-profits that weren't politically aligned to his ideas, suborn perjury from his employees, grope women employees looking for extra work, invite gun runners into the oval office for photo ops for cash, selling missile secrets to foreign countries, letting the terrorist, who already attacked the world trade center once, get away when offered up on a platter,
and my favorite since i teach and deal with this countries youth every day, to teach a generation of our youth that BJ's are just not a big deal and now we have Jr. High kids blowing each other in stair wells and wondering why adults are 'concerned'.
Oh, but the economy was great. Exactly how much is your soul worth these days? Unemployment is at roughly 6%. It'll get better. The downturn started BEFORE Bush took office and has been quite shallow. During the downturn there has been a pretty significant event that effected the economy (think 2 years ago), plus 2 wars. Reagan got reelected and carried 49 states with unemployment above 8%. I think we've lost a little perspective with the tech boom (that was completely unrealistic) that brought unemployment to 4%.
The pragmatic answer: There are many people who prefer to not think, to not make the effort to know, who feel that patriotism implies blind loyalty to the President. Open debate and criticism of the war are labeled "un-American"; those who disagree are called "traitors". Refreshingly, Newsweek suggests that perhaps it is time for a new kind of patriotism (see weblink below).
People never think, see last answers up. There's open debate, and there's political partisanship. How many anti war folk came out against bombing the Serbs? Hands? I believe Ms Gerafalo was again one to say something to the extent, it wasn't cool to come out against democrats at that time. Is she still on TV?
Now finally, the Presidential candidates are voicing their strong opinions. Are they "un-American"? Are they "traitors"? They make the criticisms I made some months ago in eNews now seem like milk toast. My previous comments brought a hailstorm of "damned liberal" epithets. I'd like to hear from those people again - I'd like to understand. And please, don't tell me to "stick to automation".
Stong Opinions? Yeah, Kerry's anti war stance is so strong that he now forgets he voted to support the war in Iraq. I'll give you that Dean was opposed from the beginning but he'd rather see Saddam's rape squads still active as opposed to having a chance at a free Iraq. Remember, it took YEARS to rebuild, Japan and Germany.
But stop! Today is 9/11/2003. It's 2 years later. Has the risk of terrorism increased, or decreased, because of Afghanistan and Iraq? Egypt's friendly President Hosni Mubarak warned: "The war in Iraq will create hundreds more bin Ladens!" Has it?
Well, if he said it I guess it must be true. Just like the UN report that Garafalo quoted, and saying that a million Iraqis would die. Wasn't there something above about THINKING. Bin Laddins would be created with or without invading Iraq. In fact, it was the previous administrations chicken shite reaction in Somalia that embolden him to attack in the first place. Look at the previous administrations reaction the the FIRST bombing. That should have been a clue.
Democracy means that the buck ultimately stops with us, the voters. We must face facts, accept personal responsibility, and do whatever we can as individual citizens. Now is the time.
I know, let's raise taxes... that'll solve it. By no means don't take this as that I approve of all that Bush does. I don't like the patriot act, or the increase in the size of government, but I do believe that Bush truly believes in making the world a safer place by democratizing Iraq and the OTHER axis of evil states. I believe the world would be safer if their were less dictators in the world... silly me. The problem is, it's not an easy job, so presidents leads the country to towards a lofty goals, others mislead the country and reach for their zippers. Kennedy asked us for reach for the Moon, Bush is asking for us to reach for a better world.
george |
| You_da_man george !!! thankyou | jasonwa
Sep 11, 2003 12:48 PM | | what he said !!!no.... wait....I think i want to go to Democrat world.
Where everyone always has a good paying job.
Where everyone is hired based on skin color and not credentials
No trees will be cut down
We will not need wood or paper
The enviroment will be squeeky clean
The air and water will be free from every pollutant because Everyone will be an upstanding clean citizen
Where everyone gets one free legal abortion MURDER a month(no parental distractions here)
We dont even bother to ask other nations about their weapons programs, just smile and give millions of dollars to be our friend.
No need for military because everyone is our friend.
In democrat world all the nations will love us and never attack us.
The united nations meetings would run super smooth and everyone would agree.
If we got rid of that murderous military than we can afford every program that we ever thought of.
We will have money for everyone and every program.All you have to do is ask and you do not have to pay it back.
No talking or writings about god either,it will just get in the way of the abortion thing.
No... wait....WHAT HE SAID |
| |
