Redstate

I would have liked to be a fly on the fall in the Engineering Dept. when they figured out why it crashed.

That truly is the mentality. I have a good friend who is basically leftist, and when I complained about not being able to get a Super Size soda anymore, she told me nobody NEEDED 44oz of Diet Coke. Well shut my mouth, who was I to decide what I eat or drink?

And light rail, oh sweet Lord. I love hearing that it's shut down in Portland due to ice, snow, outage, wind, sun, whatever, and the routes will be covered by the buses that they had to being with. Now they want to run it further north into Vancouver, to spread its money-sucking goodness to our Washington neighbors.

your friend's comment about the soda is silly, but I seem to recall that McDonalds got rid of all of their supersize stuff for no other reason than they weren't selling anymore.  I think I heard less than 5% of customers where supersizing their meals and it wasn't cost effective to have the larger size boxes, cups, etc...

I think that "less than 5%" is an after-the-fact rationalization to cover for the fact tat McDonald's had such a PR disaster with that stupid movie "Super Size Me."

Even if only 5% did upsize, that means that, for very little investment in inventory, McDonalds got an increase of a couple of percent in profit (the price of the increased inventory is pretty trivial when you're talking about how much more the meal brought into the stores).

The news about Kos and Air America brought to mind Franken's somberly titled " Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot".  I tried reading it but there were too many big words and complex ideas.  Maybe the novelty of just calling people names,[racist,liars etc] is wearing off.  Liberals[?] will never give it up but why pay money or turn on your radio for it when it's all you do or think about anyway.

    The kos thing is no surprise,two minutes on the site and you think you're in a petting zoo for retarded baby goats.  Read? They can't get past the headlines.

don't really need the extra money they're making now.  We do.  Let's take it.

. . .this is why the Left doesn't just want to build public transport, they want to coerce ( other ) people into using it.  If they spent half the money trying to force it on people making it a positively more desirable option. . .

Eh, for a long time, I've figured:  scratch the surface of a hardcore liberal, and better than even odds you find an aristocrat underneath.  Ultimately, its not about whats better for everyone, its about establishing a hierarchy of righteousness and privelege.

I'm reminded of the scene in The Aviator where Hughes is meeting Kat Hepburns wealthy family and they are droning on and on about how socialism is best when Hughes blurts out "Thats easy for you to say because you already have a lot of money."

So can I surmise from the tone of your post that you think that mass transit systems are a bad idea?

There is no question that there are people on the Left that have this silly notion of "If we build it they will come on board".   It doesn't work that way.  

Human beings are simple creatures when it comes to stuff like this.  They do their own cost/benefit analysis on what the best choice is for them.  They ask themselves "Which method of going to work is the most efficient use of my time and money".  They weigh considerations such as convenience, time spent, money spent, and general comfort.  If the BART system isn't being used then it's because people really don't see it being worth giving up the freedom of their car.  Getting people to move to mass transit is a difficult prospect because it is a major change in their lifestyle.  

Of course there are LOTS of ways to "entice" people to use the transit system.  Regional fuel tax, increase toll fees, improve comfort and/or convenience levels on the BART.  Sooner or later you CAN get people to ride the train.

People are inherently selfish.  I don't care if you are a Conservative or Liberal, Fascist or Anarchist.  People make decisions based on what they feel is best for THEMSELVES.  To think otherwise is foolish, and it is something that Liberals all too often forget.  If the BART system is underutilized and the city feels it needs to get more people to use then change the incentives.  Don't appeal to people's sense of civic duty because they won't respond to that.

I certainly agree that the "what's best for you" mentality is antithetical to what I would broadly call the American Way of Life. I disagree as to how balanced the distribution of that behavior is along the political spetrum, however - it's less of a political impulse, in my opinion, and more of a simple failing of normal human behavior. It just manifests in different ways under different overlaying ideologies.

That said, the BART ridership statistics show a pretty clear increasing trend. The total cost doesn't seem particularly crazy to me either - less than $1.7 billion, about half from a bond referendum passed back in 1962 for general infrastructure improvements, and another big chunk from toll revenues (which I think is quite reasonable).

The Katy Freeway project right here in Houston will cost about 2.7 billion and is almost entirely funded from federal grants. That is, at taxpayer expense.

If we are to make generalizations about democrats based on how the SF Bay Area chooses to fund its infrastructure projects, what should we conclude about Republicans given Houston's freeway addiction? It seems that commuters from Katy - despite strong interest in commuter rail - are also being told what's best for them - drive to work, and spend 1.5 hours on the road. I speak from personal experience here.

Liekwise, what does book sales numbers really tell us about anything? As Kos points out, Drudge's numbers are badly skewed. The book has only been out for three weeks, and in addition to the 3600 copies that Drudge mentions, has also sold 5000 copies in advance orders (the "special" edition - I bought one copy myself). Take into account the online retailers and the independent bookstores (again not represented in Drudge's estimate) and the total surpasses 10,000. Distributors have ordered another 50,000 copies and the book has already gone through three printings.

So what? what does any of this mean? How are we to make any meaningful conclusion about Democrats, the "Left", politics, America, etc from this?  All it means is that Drudge's numbers are meaningless.

As for Air America, I can't listen to it, it's the same garbage that is on conservative talk radio for the most part. Same sheiss, different spin. Whether Drudge is accurate about their ratings is irrelevant to me.

However, Air America isn't the only liberal talk radio game in town. In fact, the real liberal power player (aside from Howard Stern, who single-handedly obliterates the thesis that liberal issues have no market on the airwaves), is "Big" Ed Schultz. From his bio:

A Virginia native, Ed was lured to the Plains on a football scholarship at Moorhead State in Moorhead, Minnesota. He became a high-profile athlete and an All-American quarterback. After taking a shot at playing professional football, he returned to Fargo, North Dakota, where he put his talents to work as a sportscaster. He spent nearly 15 years providing play-by-play and color commentary for local teams, and serving as Sports Director and Anchor for WDAY-TV (ABC), prepping him for his natural transition to talk radio host on KFGO 790-AM, in Fargo.

Ed launched "News and Views," a regional talk show in 1992. His fearless approach to topics and innate ability on radio quickly catapulted him to the top of the ratings chart. Ed was the lead talent for KFGO AM which won numerous awards including "The Marconi" (News/Talk/Sports Station of the Year), "The Peabody" in 1997, and two individual "Eric Sevareid" Awards (First place Talk/Large Market) in 2002 & 2003.

Big ed was a very conservative talk radio host at first but has shifted leftwards without apology. In Houston you can only get him late at night, but his show is imensely popular and his ratings are ahead of Limbaughs in many markets (I can't find hard numbers). There was a interesting piece at Command-Post.com that discusses Big Ed, with this comment:

If you haven't sampled Schultz, he's worth sampling, no matter what your political views. If you're quickly switching the dial and get him you'd almost swear at first that you have Rush Limbaugh because there are some similarities in voice tone and speech pattern, but the accents -- and the ideas -- are quite different.

One Schultz's main strengths is that he's willing to talk to virtually any caller, even (you might say especially) those with whom he disagrees. And disagree he certainly will, usually respectfully, thoughtfully and strongly. Schultz recently took a blast of heat from listeners by opening up both barrels on Democratic National Committee chairman Howard Dean for Dean's controversial remarks about Republicans -- he argued that they were counterproductive (as this site has repeatedly argued) -- and for not doing better to match GOP funds.

Schultz also made clear when he talked to Dean about his ire over Dean not returning his calls and not going on his show earlier. Schultz was accused by some callers (and on some weblogs) of not being a true liberal. Actually, Schultz is a liberal but he's a pragmatic one who runs his radio show the way you can see he would like to see the Democratic party be run: by getting the ear of and making his case to centrists and some Republicans versus simply preaching to the same, already-convinced group of people over and over again.

I am sure that there are many progressives who do indeed think Air America is some kind of "antidote" to the "poison" of right-wing talk radio and therefore do indeed want YOU to listen to it. But they would also be listening too, and the fact that they aren't suggests more that they were a minority to begin with. After all, most liberals I know prefer NPR over Air America for teh same reasons I do - they find as much fault with the format of righty talk radio as they do the content - and that's why Big Ed has gained si much popularoty rather than the ideological copy of the right that is Air America's niche.

Aside. Please allow me to me plug the Chris Baker Show in Houston as the best radio talk on the planet (he happens to be conservative, but I am allowed to like radio based on its value and discussion rather than its political leanings).

are tolls and fuel taxes, I'll keep my gas-hogging, air-polluting Jeep and just vote you out of office instead.  Phoenix is undertaking a boondoggle of a light rail system even though our buses are already under-used because, well, our roads don't have an intolerable amount of traffic on them (aside from the freeways at peak hours).  Of course, if they wanted to make roads more clogged so people would start seeing the benefit of mass transit, then their idiot construction crews are doing a great job.  I remember trying to drive on Central Avenue when I went a home a few weeks ago only to find that all the left turn lanes were closed and the northbound was down to one lane.  So much for high-tech, taxpayer funded government efficiency.  And the kicker is that when the city is done with this mess, no one will use it, because if you thought San Franciscans liked their cars, then you haven't met Phoenix residents.  Why take the bus when the roads are so nice and straight and wide?  I'll usually walk to my destination rather than wait for a bus or train; that's how much they annoy me with their inconvenient schedules, frequent stops, and rather unpleasant odors.  Maybe if they had asked me, the government wouldn't be wasting my money on this garbage.

So can I surmise from the tone of your post that you think that mass transit systems are a bad idea?

We already have a working mass transit system. Almost everyone voluntarily uses it, and has paid for it already. It gets us where we want to go, when we want to go, and does so with amazing effeciency.

It is called "the automobile".

A wonder of the modern age. Use it, and thank me later.

Good article with some very good points. However I'll venture to say that mass transit is not always a bad idea. I've never been to the SF bay area, but the light rail trains and express busses here in Dallas, TX are excellent and quite heavily utilized. It's a pretty good bargain, too, especially if you work downtown and don't feel like paying for parking. It's fast & reliable. I know public transpo. is not for everyone, but when it's done right, it works pretty well.

I'm not the one who asked Steven that question. You may have mis-clicked your reply?

calling the automobile a mass transit system is a pretty astoundingclaim, though. Youre deliberating misrepresenting the point of the word "mass". Automobiles are personal transit and are essential, but mass transit has a specific meaning and shouldnt be subject to spin.

I am a big fan of mass transit: specifically, buses. And heavy, commuter rail, NOT light rail.

However I'll venture to say that mass transit is not always a bad idea

Of course it's not. Yet, nonetheless, you'll find plenty of "conservatives" who are reflexively opposed to the idea.

Apparently, expanding the array of transportation choices is somehow "anti-conservative". I've never gotten it.

And as to Steven's point, BART was created by a vote of local voters. I'm hugely opposed to bond issues on principle, but the fact is the local voters voted for it, and that's federalism, like it or not. (I'm also not sure the BART anecdote lends itself to his overall thesis here...)

(Disclaimer: I used BART to get to a summer job back in the early 90's, and I hated L.A.'s lack of something similar when I worked there in the late 90's - the quickest way to become a fan of light rail is to try to get around via L.A.'s bus system: it's impossible!)

I've lived in a number of places where it was possible to use mass transit to get to work -- NYC, San Francisco, London, Antwerp, Tokyo -- and I always was very happy to do so. In San Francisco I used BART to commute across the Bay, and it certainly was not underused; it was jammed. I don't know what current usage levels are, but it's misleading to imply that low use when it first opened implies a general rejection of mass transit.

And it's funny for a member of the "moral values" right wing to list only those values that the left wing thinks would be good for people to adopt. Which would you rather that government stayed out of, your consumption of hamburgers or your sex life?

Nothing wrong with you voting me out of office.  That's how it's supposed to work.

But people will use mass transit if it makes economic sense for them to do so.

I live in the Bay Area. I actually take BART to work every day. It's easy for me, as it goes from where I live to where I work, plus a walk of a couple of blocks. That's convenient for ME, but it might not be for others. As Den Beste said, we have ONE bridge across SF Bay from Oakland to San Francisco. During a work day, the population of SF goes to well over a million people. If we were to have a major disaster, that ONE bridge would be unusable as it would be packed beyond hope and a couple of accidents would render it useless. But when anyone even proposes a study of another bridge, the Lefties come swarming out screaming about the evil of cars and drivers. WE MUST ALL TAKE MASS TRANSIT!! Where I live, near Berkeley, there is almost no empty land that is not protected as "open space". "Open space", in California at least, means "I don't want anyone on this land because it's pretty and I like it the way it is", or "I have a view of the hills and I don't want your house on it". The Lefty "environmentalists" assure us that we can all stop "sprawl" by living in shoebox apartments next to BART stations. The fact that no one WANTS to live like that is irrelevant. Recently they built a "transit village" next to Fruitvale BART station. There are lots of tiny apartments that are "affordable", full of seniors. The stores below are empty, unable to find tenants, as everyone leaves BART and goes home. It's a complete flop. But true to form, the are at least seven more "transit villages" being built right now. In the face of complete failure, but true to the Lefty ideology, the projects go on. And people wonder why I am leaving this state as soon as I can).

Um, as a rule of thumb, yes. There are exceptions of course.

The fundamental problem of mass transit is that it requires many people to be starting from the same location and moving to the same destination at the exact same time. The reality of the world is, this doesn't happen frequently, even in the Big City.

In my life, I've used one piece of mass transit that worked efficiently, and even then, it didn't do so in the summer. It was in State College, PA, and I think it was the S-route bus while college was in session. There was a large collection of apartment buildings at the end of the line (five different property companies with their super-multi-unit, 4+ people to a unit buildings) and it ran every 10 minutes, so you were never long from a bus. The stops along the route were rather frequent so you could come pretty close to ending up wherever you needed to be. It was the ONLY line of the entire bus system that actually was convenient. And in the summer, since the students weren't on campus, they cut their scheduled run to less than half, which then made it fairly inconvenient to use.

Currently I live in the metropolitan DC area. I take the MARC train to work because I get more than half the cost of the ticket subsidized, can have the remainder of the ticket paid for pre-tax, and no longer have to shell out $90+ for parking, and have an 8 miles per 3 days commute. As a functional system, it sucks. Trains run at irregular intervals in one direction only, and it takes as long or longer to ride the train to work than it does to drive, even in rush hour traffic (assuming of course the train is on time, there are no heat restrictions, or frozen switches, and nobody has decided to either "beat" the train across an interesection or suicide by train). During the summer and when Congress is not in session I could save 15-30 minutes commute time. Note that this is far more convenient for me than the much-vaunted Metro system, as it is firstly a straight shot to my destination in Silver Spring, and secondly, I don't have to drive through one of the major I270 bottlenecks to get to the Metro station from my home.

Can't agree more. I use light rail most every day to get to work (I live in Los Angeles not SF) because for me it's basically free (my company subsidies the fare) and that makes it cost effective. It's also convenient, in that it runs down the middle of the freeway that I would be driving anyway, so I don't need to go out of my way to use it. Add the fact that it drops me off about 1/4 of a mile from my office and I can use the the short walk as part of an exercise program. All in all for me personally it makes sense to use Rail rather than drive the same route.

That's how you get people to use mass transit, by making it convenient on all ends and cost effective. If it cost less to drive then I would do that.

presenting a false dichotomy when the real answer is I want the government to stay away from my diet and not dictate left-wing morality to me when it comes to sex.

And if the guvmint doesn't see it that way, I reserve my Second Amendment rights to fix the guvmint.

I wish the choice was presented to me like that.

At least I'd be able to pick one area where I could be left alone.

I may be wrong here but I think that Steven is trying to point out an attitude with a specific example. It's not mass transit that's a problem but the belief that one has the right to make plans for others. And especially to compel them if they fail to follow your plans.

Mass transit planners, like most bureaucrats, have an unshakeable faith in their ability to make others happier, healthier and more virtuous. They see themselves as a priesthood of public good. In San Francisco the majority sees themselves as members of this priesthood. Even here in what passes for conservative Orange County, we continue to vote to subsidize about 2/3 of cost of riding the bus. Not one person in 10 rides the OCTA but a majority of voters are willing to make everyone pay taxes for mass transit. We all know what's better for everyone else.

Until we get over the priesthood complex, we're going to do nothing about waste in mass transit or any other program.

The modern Democrat theory at work.

Not one person in 10 rides the OCTA but a majority of voters are willing to make everyone pay taxes for mass transit. We all know what's better for everyone else.

One of the fundamental tenets is that the government must grow, and keep growing, at all costs.  This is why unsuccessful and poorly-supported ideas keep getting pitched to the public.  The difference is that the means of persuasion have changed, and we've got a lot of people who are nominally Republican signing onto this kind of baloney for the purposes of getting reelected.  

It's a travesty of government when the elected officials realize that the only reason they're in power is to take money from taxpayers to keep them addicted to their largesse.  Hayek realized that this was going to happen in any democratically-elected government where the money to be apportioned grew too large for most people to comprehend and government became nothing but a brawl to see whose favored people get paid from the public trough.  And that's where we are, sadly.

This has been refined to a high art form.  If you listen to FM radio stations in MA, you'll hear advertisements telling you to apply for government programs "even if you think you make too much money."  The original impulse, to take care of the poor and the people who were truly needy, has become a machine that functions only if more people who don't need (and shouldn't have) government support keep signing up for the programs.

I want the government to ... not dictate left-wing morality to me when it comes to sex.

I assume you mean by that that you'd be quite happy for the government to dictate right-wing morality to you and everybody else. I, and most liberals, would have left out the words "left-wing" in what you wrote.

I think it's fairly obvious that those radio announcements were directed to those who might be wrongly informed about making too much to be eligible. In other words, to people who do need and should have government support, but are ignorant about the qualifications. Your reading of it is obtuse, probably willfully so.

Taken as a whole, the comments of this troll need cleaning up!

This:

I, and most liberals, would have left out the words "left-wing" in what you wrote

I find ridiculous. Have you been to http://www.dailykos.com/ "> Fantasy Land lately???

Living in the United States, in several major cities, a couple of suburbs and no fewer than 4 states along the East Coast and 1 in the Midwest (Illinois) I have never found it to be a problem for people who are eligible for government programs to find out about their eligibility and take advantage of it.  The exact opposite is true.  

At least in one of the places I've lived (New Jersey.)  In my hometown one of the fixture restaurants was a Chinese place in a mini-mall at the intersection of two of the main thoroughfares through town.  The place was always bustling and busy, had more than ten employees and there was always a long wait for service.  

The owner of the restaurant was a Chinese woman who had three children, all of whom were born free of charge including all prenatal and postpartum care at Newark Beth-Israel hospital on the government dime, because she collected welfare.  She spoke perfect English but never spoke it to bureaucrats and social workers who believed that she was poor and her children were poor.  A little over ten years ago she sold (and when I say "she" I know that the provenance on the property was probably fictitious but hey, who understands Chinese names anyway?) that business for about $250,000 and moved back to Taiwan with the money she had made and stashed away, which during the 1980's was more than $1,500 a week -- in cold, hard cash.  There were no credit cards or checks accepted in her restaurant.

She came to this country as an adolescent, and by the time she left had over $1,000,000 in wealth.  If you knew her outside of work she drove expensive cars and had a penchant for jewelry, but behind the counter she looked like an inauspicious refugee.  To make that money she exploited other Chinese who were in the country as illegals.  She had no compunction about paying them a pittance and still claiming welfare for herself and her children.

How do I know this?  My father and I were customers in that restaurant for more than 15 years and gradually built up a relationship with her, and we spoke with her informally on many occasions, especially just before she left while she was making the plans to return to Taiwan.  That's when all of the real information about her started to come out, because she was leaving in two weeks.

People in this country, and from other countries, don't need any extra help finding out about government programs.  Turn on late-night TV or visit Democrats.com.

Also:  all her children, born on your taxpayer money with the finest medical care in the world, are American citizens.  They can all return to this country any time they want and vote Democrat.

Here in the Big City Welfare Department, we give people on General Assistance about $400 a month, as long as they have rent to pay. But the scam goes like this: one person gets a lease in a public housing apartment. The rent is 30% of income, so when you make $400 a month from GA, your rent is $120 for a one bedroom apartment. However, since no one ever checks, you have six people living there, each on GA getting $400 a month. So, you have six people pulling in $2400 a month in GA while one pays $120 for rent. These folks also get $150 a month in Food Stamps, which is $900 a month in groceries. All this is tax free. Now we in the Big City Welfare Dept know that these folks are defrauding the Housing Authority, but we are NOT ALLOWED TO INFORM anyone about this, due to "confidentiality" rules. And you wonder why people don't work? Oh, and by the way, we occasionaly move an Asian or Eastern European family into public housing when there is a need, and within days, they are back at our office having been assaulted and run out of their own apartments by another "ethnic" group who claims all public housing as their own. Nice, huh? This is your welfare dollars at work.

Actually, I know, that the person in question in my story above was also running schemes that were similar to the one you describe.  She was a very "lucky" woman, indeed, and she knew how to play the system.

She walked to work almost every day of the week that she appeared in the restaurant but she also managed to own two Mercedes.  And not the ones with rust or dents that hadn't been maintained.  She left to return to Taiwan because the INS and the IRS had finally gotten wise to her more than 15-year-long scheme.  And she collected welfare for the entire time and had three children as a "poor displaced female impoverished immigrant."

Heh.

People on the Donk side would call her a "smart girl."

Yea, I might have mis-clicked ...

Be that as it may;

The automobile IS a mass transit system ... roads handle millions of people, and there is a vast system of service stations and car dealers in place to provide transport and maintanance.

There is one big difference between this mass transit system and the ones that you are a fan of ... this one does not require massive state intervention to exist, because it handles peoples' needs better, people will voluntarily pay for it.

Because whatever the proposed system is, it costs a whole lot of money and is not the most practical or cost effective solution.

When you decide to go for the billion dollar light rail line instead of spending a few hundred thousand on more buses... yes, conservatives are not going to be big supporters of that. I don't hear anyone complaining about buses. We have to build light rail for the same reasons we have to subsidize opera houses... because they are pretty and it just seems like something we should have.

Apparently, one big mistake that BART's original designers made was to forget that conductive material falls from the sky on a regular basis.

Granted, that's not a hard mistake to make, as there are usually six months in a year one can count on that not happening at all, but really, they forgot that rain and above-ground, open-air electrified tracks don't mix. There are covers for all the "third rails", which were added as an afterthought.