A Tale of Two Transportation Political Agendas

There were a couple of interesting articles in the New York Times this month highlighting the difference between the political wills in the U.S. and other countries when in comes to transportation.

The first was this this article about bus rapid transit in poor countries, specifically looking at the system in Bogotá, Columbia. In case you've never heard of bus rapid transit (BRT), it works similar to a subway or light rail line, with enclosed stations and fare control gates, except the system is run with buses on dedicated lanes that are set apart from car lanes by physical barriers.

Now I'm not one to promote the use of buses over subways or other rail systems, but the use of bus rapid transit in this way is very innovative and a ton cheaper to implement. And I'm all for anything that takes lanes away from automobiles.

Think about what you could do in a lot of American cities with this system. We seem to have a lot of what they call "express" buses in the U.S. that basically just have stops farther apart but still get stuck in the same traffic with all the cars clogging the road. And a bus can sit at a stop for five minutes or more while people pay their fares as they board.

What Bogotá and other cities with BRT systems do is get the cars the hell out of the way and speed up boarding by allowing all doors on a long, articulated bus to be used for boarding. Imagine this system being used on 1st, 2nd and/or 3rd Avenues in Manhattan, Western and Ashland Avenues and Roosevelt Road in Chicago; Aurora and 15th Avenues in Chicago; or any the dozens of wide roads in L.A. It could be done cheaply and quickly. Our city leaders could decide to do it today and have their systems running next year.

There is one other factor that makes the system work in Bogotá - automobile restrictions. Once they implemented their BRT a plan was put in place to get people out of their cars and on the transit system (or at the very least more carpooling). There is a alternate-day driving restriction that uses license plate numbers to decide who can drive in the city on any given day.

Think about what that would mean in a city like New York or Chicago, taking up to half the cars off the road on any given day. Bogotá also removed about a third of their street parking to make room for the BRT, another deterrent to driving into the city.

We could do this here easily, it only takes the political guts of our elected officials to get it done.

But what do we do in the U.S? We protect our single-occupancy vehicle addiction like it is a god-given right.

The other article in the New York Times was about the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's study on cell phones and driving. The report found that driving while talking on the phone, hands-free or hand-held phone made no difference, makes a driver as dangerous on the road as someone who has a blood alcohol level of .08. What did our government do with this information? They suppressed it, of course.

We have people on the road causing accidents and fatalities at the same rate as drunk drivers and our government doesn't want us to know it. Public safety be damned, people have the "right" to talk on the phone while they drive if they want. There are only a few states that have laws restricting the use of cell phones while driving, and those only prohibit using your hand-held device behind the wheel even though it is well known that a hands-free phone conversation is just as likely to cause an accident.

Anyone who is a pedestrian in any big American city probably goes through the same crap I do walking the streets of New York. I must come dangerously close to getting hit by a car driven by someone talking on their phone at least three to four times a week. A slow week. (And yes, drivers, I know that pedestrians talking or texting on their phone and not watching where they are going when they cross against a light when cars are coming up the street are a big problem as well. That should also be dealt with.)

And other things that are dangerous distractions are just as likely to cause an accident as drinking and driving, such as smoking or eating in the car. I know of no place that has laws prohibiting these behaviors while driving.

And if you even suggest writing these kind of laws people have a hissy fit. We expect our cars to be a private domain, like our homes, and that anything we do in them is our business alone, no matter how many people it kills. There was a similar resistance to the drunk driving laws back in those days, too.

(This doesn't even get into the subject of our unsafe speed limits - which are casually enforced at best to begin with and then only to raise revenue, not for public safety - or the fact that it is legal to sell cars in the U.S. that can run at speeds in excess of 150 mph despite the fact there is no place that it is legal to drive that fast. One little law on the books about the speed ability of cars sold in the U.S. and you end all those high speed chases once and for all.)

And therein lies our problem. If we don't even have the political will in this country to even pass reasonable laws that are about the immediate public safety, how will we ever develop a public policy that is about stopping global arming, improving our horrible urban air quality and the overall livability and quality of life in our cities? Are we that afraid of people's love of their precious cars?

Public officials in Columbia had the guts to majorly restrict driving to the benefit of their society. New York couldn't even get a bill passed to charge a minimal fee to drive into the city center. (And if you are wondering, it was the Democrats that killed it in the state assembly. Can't blame the Republicans for that one.)

What does it say about us that elected officials in Columbia - Columbia! - are politically braver than any leaders in the U.S?

While you were lamenting...

 
...the passing of Ed McMahon or Farrah Fawcett or Michael Jackson or even that guy who YELLED REALLY LOUDLY ABOUT LOUSY CLEANING PRODUCTS AND SOME OTHER SHITE, the Honduran army swiftly ousted President Manuel Zelaya on Sunday in Central America's first coup since the fall of the Iron Curtain.

Soldiers entered the presidential palace in the capital, Tegucigalpa, and disarmed the presidential guard early Sunday, military officials said.

Political tensions had increased in recent weeks, as Zelaya pressed ahead with his Hugo Chavez-like plans for a nonbinding referendum that opponents said would open the way for him to rewrite the Honduran constitution to run for re-election despite a one-term limit.

President Obama said Sunday that he was deeply concerned by the reports from Honduras about the detention and expulsion of the president.

“I call on all political and social actors in Honduras to respect democratic norms, the rule of law and the tenets of the Inter-American Democratic charter,” Mr. Obama said in a statement. “Any existing tensions and disputes must be resolved peacefully through dialogue free from any outside interference.”

Unfortunately I believe Obama is playing this ballgame a bit too safely in his condemnation of this latest infraction on the "democratic system." Zelaya is a close buddy of Venezuelan honcho Hugo Chavéz, enjoying full support and adulation of labour unions and the poor.

That being said, however, Honduras has long been a banana republic puppet controlled by rich corporations with North American interests. And so, as with everything that is the dirty game of politics and wrangling for power, the Honduran people are faced with two awful choices: Communism or Capitalism.

Eeee-rahn, Numbah One

 
The iron cleric is now blinking. Get hot water quick.

Iran's Supreme Leader the Ayatollah Somethin' Somethin' Khamenei has agreed to a partial re-count of disputed ballots in Friday's divisive elections, although he ruled out an annulment of the vote.

Despite the Ayatollah's celestial right to govern, the presidency of Iran is far from unimportant. It is a critical part of the "managed democracy" that the ruling clerics have used to govern Iran for the last three decades. Khamenei himself is a former President. The job is important enough to have brought millions of Iranians to the polls on Friday, and thousands into the streets afterward — both supporters of the apparent loser--reformist candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi--and members of the radical volunteer paramilitary forces who support the reelected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

But the system is tricky. It actually allows the Supreme Leader to present different faces to the world. While he has strongly backed Ahmadinejad, for example, Khamenei also for a time designated one of the president's key pragmatist critics, Ali Larijani, as the point man in negotiations with the West over Iran's nuclear program.

I wonder, though, if the Obama administration wouldn't be under extreme pressure should Mousavi, the reformist, moderate candidate emerge victorious, while Iran's hard line regarding nuclear weapons is still maintained?

In dealing with Ahmadinejad, the administration has been able to gather international support and put enough pressure on Iran to at least soft-arm them into minute concessions. In the political milieu, we need to have a clear, defined enemy at the helm over there in order that we shine as the world's democratic example. And as all political establishments aim for status quo, I am suspicious of the United States' desire to truly oust Ahmadinejad.

In every fairy tale there is a clear good guy and there is a clear bad guy. Mir-Hossein Mousavi would muddy-up the equation enough to cause the administration severe migraines.

Machination

 
It's beyond obvious that since the inauguration we've all lost our verve around here. Personally speaking, it took a bit longer than the rest of the contributors, but it's happened. I've turned back to the wall of cynicism and distrust of politics and its actors.

It shouldn't be a surprise. I was raised and went to university in the Washington D.C. area, and the weight and influence of the political machinery churning its soul-sucking cogs drove me away from this most corrupt of disciplines for the two decades I spent in that godforsaken city. Life inside the Beltway is so exclusive and insular, fraught with backroom deals and chest-stabbing followed by luncheons and myriad cocktails at The Old Ebbitt Grill, that I thoroughly believe everyone encircled and entrenched in that insufferable layer of hell has lost track of life outside it.

Having worked within it for six years I can testify to the ignorance of politicians for their constituency outside the Beltway--no matter what they all crow about on C-SPAN. The fact is, a pol's main mission(s) is/are to either get rich (hello corporation lobbying), headline the revered Cocktail Circuit, or get on the list of Ben Bradlee's and Sally Quinn's frequent Georgetown parties. Bob Woodward has become such an elite stalwart on the D.C. circuit that he himself now hosts the second most popular annual shin-dig at his Victorian or Tudor or whatever the hell style townhouse he has on M Street.

But Woody is a...journalist, and we all know journalists have no power to influence, no matter how much access they're given to an administration or how many "inside scoop" - type books they pen. Yes?

Basically, what I'm seeing now is a half-assed push for change by the current administration, which is being met in typical, status-quo fashion by the good ol' boys (and some girls) in Congress. Make no mistake, I knew from the start Obama was Obama--a skilled, intelligent, forward-thinking...POLITICIAN. And so I didn't expect anywhere as much as was promised. But what I'm seeing now is our system's machinations working flawlessly to effectively cut off any and every thing. Sure, you can give me your examples of this and that being passed or worked through, but generally it's business as usual on the old hill.

And if this administration isn't successful in pushing anything through, then I will not see true change in my lifetime. Of that, I am confident. That may be cynicism, but you won't blame me for inaccuracy. You'll see. I'm an old dog with wide open eyes.

On the healthcare issue*, I recently found out that one of the more popular versions (if there exists such a term for this initiative here in the States) of coverage with Congress is the mandatory purchase of the government-sponsored plan (Public Option). That is to say, EVERYONE must at least pay the government-sponsored premium, otherwise they will be fined. So, basically, if you're too poor to afford health insurance to begin with, the government wants to give you the option to pay the mandatory premium for its plan, otherwise be fined--a la the IRS coming after you. In some cases, people have chimed that the government fine for NOT choosing an option is actually more affordable than its premium.

Ladies and gents, this has GOT to be the most idiotic, half-assed scheme I've heard. I was under the impression that "everyone will be covered" meant healthcare is given to EVERYONE who...stay with me here...CANNOT AFFORD A HEALTH INSURANCE PREMIUM OF EVEN $1. But no. In typical American fashion, we're going to make our citizens pay up, or be fined.

My friends, this is why I've said now for over a year that this system here, in this country, does not work for me and my family. It's compromises such as this that succeed in making me want to pick up that M-16, take the Orange Line to the Capitol South station, and pay a little visit to that revered hill. Say hello to my leeetle friend, you elitist, scheming, corporation and central bank-bought swine!

I am reduced to this. And it happens every time I dig down far enough into the nuts and bolts of our system. Fundamentally it doesn't work to help its citizens have a chance at a decent life.

And so I leave you with this cheery column on this soggy, cloudy Monday. I don't know what there is to be done about anything in Washington anymore. At this point, my personal answer to improving my life and my family's is to emigrate. All in due time; there are some loose ends that have to be slowly tied here, but the plan has been put into motion.

*Please note correction of single payer vs. Public Option note in the Comments by Teresa

The Third Hand...

There’s a concept I’ve been discussing with my Father recently; a concept I’ve given to calling, the “Third Hand”.

When a Political Figure acts against his nature, for whatever reason, there’s usually some other force at work, something we don’t see.

Put a simpler way, you got one hand on Obama pulling him one way, you got another hand pulling him in reverse, and then comes another hand (hint-hint: a Third Hand), which pushes him the way he actually goes.

Think of it like this, if there’s a situation where Obama does something to deliberately anger his base, logic suggests that the alternative, whatever it may be, is far worse.

Thus, we come to the release, or non-release, of those Abu Ghraib Photos, and the President’s reversal on that decision. My fellow Progressives/Liberals are justifiably upset by the decision…or maybe not so justifiably.

Looked at on its own, by itself the decision to withhold those photos is indefensible. Lord knows people I read, admire and respect have been dumping all over it. (Though I will say, David Kurtz in TPM comes very close to the explanation I'm about to give you, and...after all...he's a professional, and got there first, so...kudos.)

But…and I hate to bring the West Wing into anything…but it’s like President Bartlet said in the episode Hartsfield’s Landing (Episode 58, Season 3): “See the whole board…”

What do I mean by that?

Ask yourself, what happened? What made President Obama change his mind, or more to the point, has something changed that would make President Obama change his mind??

I’d say, yes.

Mind you this is just a theory, but at the same time...

Since the last week of April, beginning of May, there has been a considerable uptick in the violence in Pakistan, as the Taliban has moved ever closer to Islamabad, the capital of Pakistan (within 60 miles, so it seems). Now, the United States has been using Aerial drones to ice people across the Pakistani Border. The Pakistani Government has been upset about that, but since Pakistani’s Prime Minister is Asif Ali Zardari (aka Benazir Bhutto’s widower) and Islamist Militants were the ones who killed her, I don’t think he’s that upset…you know what I mean?

(In fact, should I mention that the Pakistani Government wants "ownership" over U.S. Drones? God, I hope we told them "hell, no.")

The situation was so bad that General Petraeus said that Pakistan was two weeks from falling, and the President was asked about the security of Pakistan’s Nuclear Arsenal at his last press conference.

But something has happened into the interim. Pakistan’s population has decided that they don’t much like the Taliban, or Taliban rule. In fact now that the Taliban has closed within 40 miles of the Capital, suddenly, we don’t have to bribe the Generals into defending their own country anymore. They’re actually (finally) pulling troops off the Indian border to get into the fight with the extremists. In fact, it’s creating something of a humanitarian crisis as refugees flee the fighting.

So, we are left with a situation where the Pakistani Military has finally gotten off its collective, and ineffective ass to start dealing some payback to the Taliban. There's popular support for the offensive in mainstream Pakistan, and all this is coming off recent American pressure to do so.

...and into this hyper-mega-combustile mix, some folks want to release some 2000 more photographs of Americans torturing Muslims?!?

Can you say…Danish Cartoons?? Times ten??

The President said that these Photographs were "not particularly sensational, particularly when compared to the painful images we remember from Abu Ghraib." Maybe, maybe not. We only have his word on this. I've heard in some quarters, these photos were pretty bad. They were bad enough to have Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman write the President a letter begging him to not to release the photos. (It's too bad they couldn't have gotten a Democrat to sign that letter. I would have been helpful if it was bipartisan.)

With the Pakistani populace finally seeing things our way, why do we want to go and insert into the discussion something that makes the Pakistanis start thinking that the Taliban has a point?!?

Listen, some of the stories I’m seeing are using a specific word: stall and/or delay. I think the Administration is eventually going to release these photos, on their own accord. Either that, or I wonder how far they'll fight the case in court. Either way, they’re not going to release those photos yet, not until Pakistan stabilizes.

Personally, I want the photos released, too, but I'm personally okay with this decision as long as it's only a stall, or a delay...and not an outright cancellation.

At the end of Hartsfield's Landing, Sam Seaborn (in case you don’t remember, played by Rob Lowe), asks President Bartlet (Martin Sheen), a question. The answer is one that is both simple and complicated all at the same time, and is one of the reasons (I trust) we all voted for the President in the first place:

SAM

I don’t know how you... I don’t know the word. I...don’t know how you do it.

BARTLET

You have a lot of help. You listen to everybody and then you call the play.

I think the President might owe us a better explanation than the “safety of American Troops”, which is both true and hollow all at once. But this advice is coming from his Generals (something we all thought Bush didn't do enough of), and its coming from his OLC (who may actually have read a Law Book or two in their careers).

Still, I think the real reasons play across a far wider board...one we all should try to see, but that the President is ultimately responsible for.

Please remember, there was a reason we decided we wanted this man to call the plays.


UPDATE (5:26pm Pacific): For the record, I beat Joe Klein to the punch.



Originally posted at Fort McHenry.

The Stupid Chamber

Among progressives, which I proudly am, a lot of attention and ire gets focused on the extreme right-wing media and their completely fucked-up agenda. I'm talking about your FOX News, WorldNetDaily and Human Events of the world. We spend a lot of our time attacking and exposing their lies, and rightly so. But I really don't think they are the most dangerous part of the media.

The right-wing whack-a-doodles in the general public will continue to believe their crazy nonsense whether there is a FOX News or not. My brother isn't going to suddenly see the light on socialized health care (he says that all the rich people in England come here for their health care, despite, you know, the facts) if Bill O'Reilly no longer has a platform for his bloviating every night. It's called the echo chamber for a reason. My dumb ass born-again sibling would still be an uninformed dunderhead, he just wouldn't have a TV legitimizing his screwed up points of view.

No, I think the most dangerous thing about the media today is the so-called "news" that gets reported in what is supposed to be the "legitimate" media. CNN is often put forward (often by themselves) as the centrist or "slightly left-leaning" (which is really laughable knowing they have Lou Dobbs) 24-hour news network. I could argue against these claims all day long, but that's not the real issue.

No, it is that the media is completely dumbed down and distracting the moron masses from the real important stuff of the day. We see stories about the president ordering a hamburger, live as it happens and called "breaking news." I imagine this whole week we will be enduring a whole lot of nonsense about Wanda Sykes being offensive or not. We already seem to be moving beyond the info-tainment we've had for several years and dropping the info altogether.

Case in point. I was flipping through the channels last week or so and I came across Larry King. I despise Larry King, it is hard for me to believe that anybody likes Larry King and can stand to watch him. I can feel my IQ dropping in just a few minutes of his show. He's like the 24-hour news version of Saved By The Bell. Even though I know better, when I come across him I seem to not be able to turn away from the intellectual car accident on my screen. (Which is also just like Saved By The Bell.)

On this particular episode, Larry started off the show with a short segment on the "breaking news" of the medical student who was robbing hookers in hotel rooms to feed his gambling habit and appears to have murdered one of them. And while I believe the too common violence against women should be highlighted in the media, this was just sensationalistic nonsense that involved Larry having on as guest some "friends" of the accused. These friends turned out to be a couple of guys who maybe sat beside him in a lab one time and most of the exchanges involved Larry asking them if they knew he was crazy back then. It reminded me a lot of the old SNL sketch when Buckwheat got shot. (You know the one. "Did you think he's shoot Buckwheat?" "Oh sure, it's all he ever talked about.")

This was just a prelude. That was only the quick, news of the day, put together segment because he guy just got arrested. No, when Larry went to commercial he announced that he'd be "right back with Perez Hilton and Dennis Prager debating Miss California.

Seriously. Perez Hilton, Dennis Prager and Miss California. It sounded like the Jeopardy answer to the question, "which three people would you most like to see knee-capped in the most painful way imaginable?"

How does this crap make it on to TV at all, much less a supposed "news" channel?

No my friends, the right-wing propaganda machine is the least of our problems as I see it. The mindless drivel that comes from the mainstream media today that is there to sell us crap and make our big concern be whether or not our cell phone makes our toast (props to George Carlin) is destroying us much more than Hannity ever could.

Not that Hannity's not trying to catch up.

Thrifty is Nifty

 
I've been reading lately a whole slew about how thrifty Americans have become all of a sudden. The savings rate, according to an article in the NY Times this morning, has risen from zero percent to a bit over 4, in the last year. We went from a savings rate of 14 percent in the 1970s, to negative 2.7 percent in 2005, meaning Americans were spending more than they made.

Corporations had been salivating on the heels of these numbers. They had finally turned us into super-consumers who were actually brainwashed into living on credit. I recall a conversation I had with a friend in 1997 in which I extolled the virtues of paying off your home as fast as possible. My parents paid off their first home in 7 years, and their second in two. My friend shook her head and proceeded to explain how it's "healthy" to be in mortgage debt, and besides...you get to write off the interest at tax time.

Stupid Americans! (I thought). They'd rather pay off a mortgage perpetually and deduct A PERCENTAGE of the interest paid from taxes, than not have a mortgage at all. I never understood it. And never will. Perhaps I'm old school, but my idea is not busting out half my salary on a mortgage for the rest of my life. I'd rather take that $1500/month and store it up for travelling to Italy, Spain, France, Bali, Tokyo, Melbourne....somewhere else.

Now the Econ experts are biatching about how we're all going to railroad the already-struggling economy by not spending. I just shake my head at all of this; they continue to drive into our heads this horseshite that has already bankrupted us. But how to get the economy started again? Spend! Spend what? I think it's time for a new model, fellas.

In any case, I don't believe the majority of Americans have learned their lesson; they'll store away capital out of necessity, not enlightenment. But I am optimistic that our government will regulate bank products such as no-down-payment or no-income-verification mortgage loans and credit lines, thus putting some sort of halt on the Frankenstein that has been created by banks.

And a quick shout-out to all skewed, warped Americans who are now holding their heads in sorrow over the fact that they can no longer afford that third SUV: WAKE UP! "He who dies with the most toys..." still dies.

Let us know how well that overdrive system works in the 9th Circle of the Inferno.