Should you get a Free (Bicycle) Ride?



On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:12:59 +0000, George Conklin wrote:


> "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> In article <kaVOc.222182$XM6.104526@attbi_s53>, Jack May
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:
>> >
>> >> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
>> >> > through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
>> >> > passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a
>> >> > fairly small number of SUVs.
>> >>
>> >> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers. The
>> >> vast majority of Americans drive one to a car.
>> >>
>> >> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
>> >
>> >The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded trains.
>> >As long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then fair to use
>> >fully loaded SUVs lies as examples.

>>
>> Even if all 3620 passengers took their own SUV, it wouldn't make a
>> discernable difference in Washington to Boston road traffic.
>>
>>
>>

> Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
> traffic


That is a tremendous advantage.

> and get a public subsidy


but not as much of a subsidy as the road users

> while proclaiming they have extra virtue at the same time. That is a
> winning combination: you can bypass traffic and be a better person.


Who would have thought Conklin to be a train booster?

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney
 
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:12:59 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
>
> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >> In article <kaVOc.222182$XM6.104526@attbi_s53>, Jack May
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:
> >> >
> >> >> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
> >> >> > through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
> >> >> > passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a
> >> >> > fairly small number of SUVs.
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers. The
> >> >> vast majority of Americans drive one to a car.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
> >> >
> >> >The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded trains.
> >> >As long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then fair to use
> >> >fully loaded SUVs lies as examples.
> >>
> >> Even if all 3620 passengers took their own SUV, it wouldn't make a
> >> discernable difference in Washington to Boston road traffic.
> >>
> >>
> >>

> > Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
> > traffic

>
> That is a tremendous advantage.
>


Only for those who get a huge governmental subsidy to do it. Rail
travel = upper class subsidy.


> > and get a public subsidy

>
> but not as much of a subsidy as the road users
>


The all-time lie. Road and air travelers get a subsidy of .04 cents (not
4 cents) per mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile subsidy.


> > while proclaiming they have extra virtue at the same time. That is a
> > winning combination: you can bypass traffic and be a better person.

>
> Who would have thought Conklin to be a train booster?
>


I like trains and railroads, but we have to admit that it has been known
since 1914 that passenger trains lose money. It happens to be the most
expensive way to travel today, although it was a lot cheaper than horses and
mules.
 
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:17:04 +0000, George Conklin wrote:


> "Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:p[email protected]...
>> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:12:59 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>>
>>
>> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> > news:[email protected]...
>> >> In article <kaVOc.222182$XM6.104526@attbi_s53>, Jack May
>> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:[email protected]...
>> >> >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston
>> >> >> > Monday through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is
>> >> >> > 362 passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit
>> >> >> > into a fairly small number of SUVs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers.
>> >> >> The vast majority of Americans drive one to a car.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
>> >> >
>> >> >The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded
>> >> >trains. As long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then
>> >> >fair to use fully loaded SUVs lies as examples.
>> >>
>> >> Even if all 3620 passengers took their own SUV, it wouldn't make a
>> >> discernable difference in Washington to Boston road traffic.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> > Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
>> > traffic

>>
>> That is a tremendous advantage.
>>
>>

> Only for those who get a huge governmental subsidy to do it. Rail
> travel = upper class subsidy.
>
>
>> > and get a public subsidy

>>
>> but not as much of a subsidy as the road users
>>
>>

> The all-time lie. Road and air travelers get a subsidy of .04 cents
> (not
> 4 cents) per mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile subsidy.


Your numbers are questionable, but let's assume they are right for the
sake of argument.

The Amtrak customer price is about $0.21 per mile. Adding in the subsidy
results in a total cost of $0.43 per mile.

You can't operate a car for less than $0.43 per mile.

Using your numbers, the choice seems clear: add more trains. Subsidize
them at $0.04 cents per mile. The user will pay more but still save over
the private automobile.


>
>> > while proclaiming they have extra virtue at the same time. That is a
>> > winning combination: you can bypass traffic and be a better person.

>>
>> Who would have thought Conklin to be a train booster?
>>
>>

> I like trains and railroads, but we have to admit that it has been
> known
> since 1914 that passenger trains lose money. It happens to be the most
> expensive way to travel today, although it was a lot cheaper than horses
> and mules.


--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney
 
Mathhew,

[ Sorry for the direct email--I'm new to this newsreader and used the
wrong command. -- RRS ]


On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:47:32 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> ... a well-designed city uses
>>> MORE land for roads than a suburb.

>>
>>Can you provide proof of that? It goes against common sense...

>
> No, it doesn't. You just have to take off the anti-suburban blinders.
> Plots of land are generally larger in the suburbs.


How's that?

A larger average lot size implies a lower population density (for a given
number of occupants per lot). A lower lot density (with all lots served by
roads), means more land area covered by roads.

It does mean a smaller portion of the total land area of the community is
covered by roads, but not a smaller total area and not a smaller road area
per resident.

Randall Schulz
 
"The dinosaur is kept on IV"

> > That's exactly what I propose. What I see though is
> > there's no political
> > will to accomplish it, as politicians are getting
> > paid to look the other
> > way. Perhaps the solution is a COMBINATION OF GOOD
> > IDEAS AND POLITICAL WILL.
> >

>
>The political will is directly proportional to how
>much profit an existing SUV manufacturer will donate
>to the cause of your local politician. The decision by
>the supreme court that donations to candidates was
>equivilent to free speech was the first step to making
>bribery legal. If there is no money to be made, no
>matter how beneficial the result, the idea will fail.


Yeap, that's the way it is. There's dozens of good ideas in the book
'Natural Capitalism,' but they are just sitting there. Old capitalism
even resists new modern capitalism.

http://www.natcap.org/

> > PS: We are fighting the Americanus Raptor and his
> > SUV friends!
> >

>...stuff deleted
>
>Cars do have their place. I just used mine to travel
>250 miles to put my kayak into the Sacramento river (3
>days paddling and camping with the bro-in-law,
>nephews, and the scout pack) and back. Great trip.
>


I believe you. I too own 3 kayaks--the ocean type--and some times go
far to launch them. The car got its place, the bicycle has its place,
and public transportation got its place. However we are forced ONE
OPTION, THE MOST PROFITABLE, THE MOST POLLUTING, THE MOST STUPID. The
dinosaur is kept on IV... ;)
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<%[email protected]>...
> "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <kaVOc.222182$XM6.104526@attbi_s53>,
> > Jack May <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >news:[email protected]...
> > >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:

>
> > >> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston Monday
> > >> > through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is 362
> > >> > passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit into a
> > >> > fairly small number of SUVs.
> > >>
> > >> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers. The vast
> > >> majority of Americans drive one to a car.
> > >>
> > >> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
> > >
> > >The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded trains. As
> > >long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then fair to use fully
> > >loaded SUVs lies as examples.

> >
> > Even if all 3620 passengers took their own SUV, it wouldn't make a
> > discernable difference in Washington to Boston road traffic.
> >
> >

>
> Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
> traffic and get a public subsidy while proclaiming they have extra virtue at
> the same time. That is a winning combination: you can bypass traffic and
> be a better person.


Better person? What can be better than a patriotic SUV, flying flags
and God bumper stickers? You too can bypass traffic, just brave your
way around...
 
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > while proclaiming they have extra virtue at the same time. That is a
> > winning combination: you can bypass traffic and be a better person.

>
> Who would have thought Conklin to be a train booster?


Maybe he got into some anger management seminar, and learned to stay
away from the road.
 
"George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > Who would have thought Conklin to be a train booster?
> >

>
> I like trains and railroads, but we have to admit that it has been known
> since 1914 that passenger trains lose money. It happens to be the most
> expensive way to travel today, although it was a lot cheaper than horses and
> mules.


So you propose to drop them altogether?

But you are wrong, the most expensive way to travel is...the shuttle!
You want to drop it too?

Are horses and mules subsidized too?
 
On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:46:20 -0700, DonQuijote1954 wrote:

<snip>
>> >
>> >
>> >

>> Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
>> traffic and get a public subsidy while proclaiming they have extra
>> virtue at the same time. That is a winning combination: you can
>> bypass traffic and be a better person.

>
> Better person? What can be better than a patriotic SUV, flying flags and
> God bumper stickers? You too can bypass traffic, just brave your way
> around...


Don, you have it backwards. If you're driving your patriotic,
penis-compensating SUV complete with oversize flag, "Support Our Troops"
bumper sticker, red-white-and blue paint, and extra 50gallon tanks of gas,
you drive over traffic, not around it. When choosing a flag for your SUV,
it should at the minimum cover your windshield. When hitting people, try
to get an appropriate mixture of red, white, and blue blood.

--
Lance Lamboy

"Go F*ck Yourself" ~ **** Cheney
 
Anyone in this groups wants a dinosaur?

How can anyone deny the obvious? WE HAVE A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION CRISIS
and WE NEED TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES. The dinosaur must evolve...

Transportation Crisis

The United States of America finds itself in a major transportation
crisis. The serious decline of all forms of transport, evident even
before September 11, has now become acutely obvious. A smooth running,
efficient transportation system is the life-blood of any strong
economy. It is especially needed now to respond to citizen's safety
and economic concerns, to speed the recovery of America, and to set
the country up for a prosperous future.

Presently, the bulk of all passenger transportation in America takes
place in airplanes and automobiles. Both of these systems continually
experience serious problems and safety issues. Most importantly, both
systems have reached their maximum capacity to effectively and
efficiently move the masses. The nation must now develop an
alternative transportation system embracing issues of safety, economic
stability, national security, and environmental sustainability. The
building of an extensive high-speed train network addresses these
important issues, and is the best solution to our current and future
transportation problems.

Recent events have demonstrated the fundamental weaknesses in the
aviation business, while automobile driving has proven increasingly
problematic. Neither form of transportation offers a long-term
solution to our growing problems. Our nation's aging road systems are
already overloaded, and therefore physically unable to pick up the
slack left by the airlines. Huge investments, totaling hundreds of
billions of dollars, are needed to shore up these ailing
transportation systems to prevent further collapse. Many thousands of
miles of roads and hundreds of bridges are in serious disrepair, and
in need of replacement. Additional investments (also in the hundreds
of billions of dollars) are needed to expand the roads and airports to
meet current and future demand. Both forms of transportation have
proven unable to meet today's demands without long delays and
congestion, and even with increased investment, it's doubtful these
systems will be able to meet future transportation demands. With so
many people permanently seeking alternative methods of travel, the
future of the entire airline industry is in question. A recent article
in Fortune magazine confirms the industry's unlikely survival. In a
review of the industry's 2001 financial performance before the
September 11th disaster, "the industry had already lost $2.5 billion
and was on track to lose $3.5 billion, its worst performance since
1992. Now the losses will be truly staggering: between $10 billion and
$11 billion. "With heavy debt, rapidly increasing expenses, and very
low operating margins, the reduction in paying customers will force
most, if not all airlines into bankruptcy." Flying is no longer an
economically feasible way of moving large numbers of people safely and
efficiently.

Our road system is in a similar crisis. Congestion has reached such a
serious state that basic mobility is in question as thousands of miles
of traffic jams spread across America daily. According to a recent US
News story, congestion has been rising at an alarming rate: "Since
1982, while the U.S. population has grown nearly 20 percent, the time
Americans spend in traffic has jumped an amazing 236 percent."
Additionally, our roads are extremely dangerous as over 42,000 people
die every year in car accidents – more than 12 times the number killed
in the recent terrorist disaster. A recent study published in the
journal Science says that auto pollution kills even more people than
car accidents. The Futurist ran a story recently that points out how
motor vehicle exhaust is the fastest growing contributor to climate
change. "Motor vehicles accounted for 58% of carbon emissions from
transportation in 1990, but their contribution grew to 73% by 1997."
The prospect of making our roads safe, and ever building enough of
them to solve the growing congestion problem seems unlikely due to the
extreme costs. The amount of physical and environmental damage
additional roads and airports would create make both forms of
transportation an undesirable, unsustainable solution.

As unlimited investment in airplane and auto travel is unlikely to
solve the present transportation challenge, there is a better
alternative.

WHY TRAINS ARE THE SOLUTION

Investing in a nationwide, high-speed train system solves many
problems at the same time. A new train system provides the best
solution for improving mobility, stimulating the economy, reducing
dependence on foreign oil, saving lives, and cleaning up the
environment. A high-speed train network will free up huge bottlenecks
in our transportation systems, encourage travel and commerce of all
forms, and would create thousands of jobs with one of the largest
public works construction projects in American history. A nationwide
train system will solve the problems facing both the airline and
automobile industries at the same time. Furthermore, it will cost a
great deal less than fixing either industry. A new train network will
significantly increase mobility in a safe, clean, fast, and efficient
way. This will make it easy and pleasurable to travel nationwide in a
seamless system of fast and sleek trains.

A new train system promotes many different goals for improving
society. Trains are the most effective way to encourage smart growth,
urban revitalization, and the creation of livable, walkable
communities. Trains greatly reduce congestion and air pollution, while
saving lives and preventing injuries. They are a sustainable form of
transportation that strengthens and stabilizes our economy, can help
break our dependence on foreign oil, and stem the transfer of our
countries' wealth to the increasingly unstable Middle East. A high
quality train system is a long-term, community-building investment
that benefits many. It is the smart transportation solution for our
society today, and well into the future. High-speed trains are a major
form of daily transportation all across Europe, many of them making a
profit for their operators, while providing safe, moderately priced
transportation for the public.

http://www.newtrains.org/pages/354050/index.htm
 
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 18:46:20 -0700, DonQuijote1954 wrote:
>
> <snip>
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
> >> traffic and get a public subsidy while proclaiming they have extra
> >> virtue at the same time. That is a winning combination: you can
> >> bypass traffic and be a better person.

> >
> > Better person? What can be better than a patriotic SUV, flying flags and
> > God bumper stickers? You too can bypass traffic, just brave your way
> > around...

>
> Don, you have it backwards. If you're driving your patriotic,
> penis-compensating SUV complete with oversize flag, "Support Our Troops"
> bumper sticker, red-white-and blue paint, and extra 50gallon tanks of gas,
> you drive over traffic, not around it. When choosing a flag for your SUV,
> it should at the minimum cover your windshield. When hitting people, try
> to get an appropriate mixture of red, white, and blue blood.


"Support Our Troops" means, "We SUVs support them, because of us they are there."
 
"Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:p[email protected]...
> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 17:17:04 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
>
>
> > "Lance Lamboy" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:p[email protected]...
> >> On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 15:12:59 +0000, George Conklin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> > "Matthew Russotto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[email protected]...
> >> >> In article <kaVOc.222182$XM6.104526@attbi_s53>, Jack May
> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >"Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:[email protected]...
> >> >> >> [email protected] (Matthew Russotto) writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The Acela Express has 10 trains from Washington to Boston
> >> >> >> > Monday through Friday. Capacity of an Acela Express train is
> >> >> >> > 362 passengers. I-95 runs all day, and 3620 passengers fit
> >> >> >> > into a fairly small number of SUVs.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Yes, probably about 3000 SUVs to carry those 3620 passengers.
> >> >> >> The vast majority of Americans drive one to a car.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > The train is also $178 round trip, per person.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The comparison was with unrealistic with always fully loaded
> >> >> >trains. As long as he uses train lies as examples, it is also then
> >> >> >fair to use fully loaded SUVs lies as examples.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even if all 3620 passengers took their own SUV, it wouldn't make a
> >> >> discernable difference in Washington to Boston road traffic.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> > Correct. But the advantage of a train is that some people can avoid
> >> > traffic
> >>
> >> That is a tremendous advantage.
> >>
> >>

> > Only for those who get a huge governmental subsidy to do it. Rail
> > travel = upper class subsidy.
> >
> >
> >> > and get a public subsidy
> >>
> >> but not as much of a subsidy as the road users
> >>
> >>

> > The all-time lie. Road and air travelers get a subsidy of .04 cents
> > (not
> > 4 cents) per mile. Amtrak gets 22 cents per mile subsidy.

>
> Your numbers are questionable, but let's assume they are right for the
> sake of argument.
>
> The Amtrak customer price is about $0.21 per mile. Adding in the subsidy
> results in a total cost of $0.43 per mile.
>
> You can't operate a car for less than $0.43 per mile.
>
> Using your numbers, the choice seems clear: add more trains. Subsidize
> them at $0.04 cents per mile. The user will pay more but still save over
> the private automobile.
>


The public pays for Amtrak. People who drive pay their own bills.
Further, the average car has 1.2-1.4 persons.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
Randall Schulz <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On Mon, 02 Aug 2004 09:47:32 -0500, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>,
>> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>> ... a well-designed city uses
>>>> MORE land for roads than a suburb.
>>>
>>>Can you provide proof of that? It goes against common sense...

>>
>> No, it doesn't. You just have to take off the anti-suburban blinders.
>> Plots of land are generally larger in the suburbs.

>
>How's that?
>
>A larger average lot size implies a lower population density (for a given
>number of occupants per lot).


True.

>A lower lot density (with all lots served by
>roads), means more land area covered by roads.


Not so.

>It does mean a smaller portion of the total land area of the community is
>covered by roads, but not a smaller total area and not a smaller road area
>per resident.


The issue wasn't road area per resident. It was road area per area.

Other issue in cities increase road area per lot, however -- many lots
have at least an alley on their back side, where in the suburbs lots
tend to back onto other lots. And city grids have more cross streets than
suburban developments.
 
> The real solution? Make cars safer by moving them over long distances via
> railcars handling them individually on an automated system.


The real solution is to INCREASE THE PRICE OF GAS. Stop subsidized
roads and gas. THEN ALTERNATIVE TRANSPORTATION WILL NATURALLY BECOME A
REALITY. And a bonus benefit will be greater security...

'We keep being told we are at war and yet no one is sacrificing for
the cause. Everywhere I turn I see Hummers and SUVs with American
flags waving from antennae like banana republic touring cars and
"United We Stand" and "We Support the Troops" on the bumpers.'

June 10

Gas Guzzlers
What will we be driving ´Day After Tomorrow´? Why we need higher gas
prices.
by Alan Bisbort

Hooray for higher gas prices. Yes, you heard me correctly. I'm glad
the price of gas is going up. I'm glad that The Day After Tomorrow is
the world's number-one box office hit. The weaknesses of its plot
notwithstanding, the film is the sort of bang-on-the-head most people
need to wake them from their daydream. Will people make the connection
between disastrous impacts of global warming and fossil fuel use? I've
given up trying to figure out what it takes to make people see the
truth, but anything that wakes them from their stupor long enough to
consider a new idea is a good thing. But about those gas prices. I'd
like to see them go even higher. Am I a masochist? No, a realist, a
pragmatist, or call me what you will. I was raised in a household
headed by a self-made American colonel who came of age in the Great
Depression and understood, to the very marrow in his bones, the adage,
"waste not want not."

Like father, like son. My father was a lifelong Republican of the old
and improved stripe, and there were many things on which we found
common ground, including fiscal responsibility, conserving and
protecting our natural resources, honoring promises, paying back debts
promptly (actually, not incurring debts if possible), doing an honest
day's work in exchange for an honest day's pay. My father lived to be
92. Throughout his long and active life, he was appalled by the waste
of Americans. The root of Americans' blissful ignorance, my father (an
engineer) was certain, was its cheap gas. Nowhere else in the world
was it so cheap, so taken for granted. He didn't make too many friends
sharing this thought with colleagues.

By what birthright do Americans think it is fitting and proper that we
squander the world's finite supply of fossil fuels? What delusion
about our superiority do we have that allows us to consume 75 percent
[I think it's 25%] of the world's natural resources while comprising 5
percent of the world's population? Looked at from a purely religious
perspective -- one that Americans insist they abide by -- we are all
equal in the eyes of God. But we act as if we really believe what
Orwell said in Animal Farm , "Some animals are more equal than
others."

Taking it further, I'd like the price of gas go even higher, with the
currently proposed 50-cent-per-gallon tax hike to be used to
underwrite the start-up costs of a viable long-term national energy
policy that will tap into alternative fuels and reusable energy
sources. Advocating for this hike, the University of Maryland's Robert
Park noted, "We need conservation. High gas prices are already pushing
SUV sales down, but it was OPEC that pushed the price up. If we plan
to declare war on every country led by a bad guy, we'll need tax
revenue. We could also think about making CAFE [corporate average fuel
economy] standards apply to all passenger cars, even if they're SUVs
and weigh as much as cement trucks. As the price of gas goes up, the
air gets cleaner, people return to the inner cities, traffic is
reduced, less time is wasted commuting."

The price of gas should also be gauged at the pump to reward those who
drive more fuel-efficient cars, so that someone who drives, say, a
Toyota Echo would pay 2.50 for the same gallon of gas that would cost
an SUV driver $4, and, conversely, the driver of a hybrid car $2.
Hummer drivers would, therefore, pay the highest price for the dubious
status these cars apparently provide. (Gas prices for transit trucks,
buses, mass transit, and other vehicles performing vital roles, would
not be affected by these price hikes). This isn't punishment. It's
called an incentive system. And it's about time.

During World War II, Americans pitched in by carpooling, planting
victory gardens and rationing gas. Signs were posted everywhere that
read, "Is This Trip Necessary?" and "When You Ride Alone You Ride With
******." Few people got on their high horses about an individual's
inalienable right to be a glutton, and those who did were quickly
shouted down for the jackasses they were. In short, people got the
message, and cooperated. Seldom, in fact, has there been a more
unified American populace.

So what's the difference today? We keep being told we are at war and
yet no one is sacrificing for the cause. Everywhere I turn I see
Hummers and SUVs with American flags waving from antennae like banana
republic touring cars and "United We Stand" and "We Support the
Troops" on the bumpers.

Oh, but this war in Iraq is not about oil, is it? In case you missed
it, the Muzhir al-Dulaymi, spokesman for the League for the Defence of
Iraqi Peoples' Rights has said that the United States is
systematically liberating the Iraqi people from their oil.

"A daylight robbery is going on in Iraq. I have first hand information
from sources in al-Bakr port in southern Iraq, and in the Turkish port
of Jihan, confirming that three million oil barrels are being taken
out of Iraq on a daily basis," Dulaymi said, adding that the Bush
administration, and its oil company supporters, are benefiting from
the process.

http://thomasmc.com/0610ab.htm
 
DonQuijote1954 top-posted:
{snip}
> June 10
>
> Gas Guzzlers
> What will we be driving ´Day After Tomorrow´? Why we need higher gas
> prices.
> by Alan Bisbort

{snip}

Posting old, tired letters/essays to Usenet... Gee, of whom does THIS
remind you???

Bill "but Don is the /best-named/ troll around" S.
 
[email protected] (Matthew Russotto) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> DonQuijote1954 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >Anyone in this groups wants a dinosaur?

>
> Like a 19th century train? That would be you.


No, like 19th Century Capitalism... ;)

Remember Ross Perot, the $.50 gas tax? The poor rich man. The Press
almost accused him of communist... :(

"Now, see, we practice 19th century capitalism."

PEROT: Defense industries are going to have to convert to civilian
industries. Many of them are. And the sooner they start, the sooner
they'll finish. And there will be a significant transition. And it's
very important that we not continue to let our industrial base
deteriorate. We had someone who I'm sure regrets said it in the
president's staff said he didn't care whether we made potato chips or
computer chips. Well, anybody that thinks about it cares a great deal.
Number one, you make more making computer chips than potato chips;
and, number 2, 19 out of 20 computer chips that we have in this
country now come from Japan. We've given away whole industries. So as
we phase these industries over, there's a whole of intellectual talent
in these industries. A lot of these people in industries can be
converted to the industries of tomorrow, and that's where the
high-paying jobs are. We need to have a very carefully thought through
phase-over. Now, see, we practice 19th century capitalism. The rest of
the world practices 21st century capitalism. I can't handle that in a
minute, but I hope we can get back into it later. In the rest of the
world, the countries and the businesses would be working together to
make this transition in an intelligent way.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/92debates/1stprez2.html
 
"S o r n i" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> DonQuijote1954 top-posted:
> {snip}
> > June 10
> >
> > Gas Guzzlers
> > What will we be driving ´Day After Tomorrow´? Why we need higher gas
> > prices.
> > by Alan Bisbort

> {snip}
>
> Posting old, tired letters/essays to Usenet... Gee, of whom does THIS
> remind you???
>
> Bill "but Don is the /best-named/ troll around" S.


Thank you for the honorific title.

But what do you get? Best defense of the indefensible? Would you go
down in history as the guys who defended the RAMPANT WASTE,
ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, AND THE OIL WAR? THE PIGS AWARD?

You got my vote! ;)
 
"the only solution is to get rid of the jungle"
<If you looking one to blame look around yourself, insurances. This is
area which push US down much more than oil.
If you want free America, illegalize insurance companies. >

All these corporations--oil, insurance, military, etc--are part of the
jungle, but by far the most dangerous is the HUNGRY DINOSAUR. Its
appetite for oil causes ENVIRONMENTAL DESTRUCTION and WAR like no
other. If the lion is the political-military, the dinosaur is the
economics of it, the obsolete industries and technologies that are
kept artificially alive. This dinosaur really has no use, and I find
it particularly repugnant to die over it.

But since all these predator are working together, the only solution
is to get rid of the jungle...