Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Bike the Bridge! Critical Mass 12th Birthday
A slew of silly cyclists defiantly celebrated the 12th birthday of the global Critical Mass movement, born in San Francisco, which included decentralized rolling sound systems all tuned to the same pirate radio station and a roll up the on-ramps to the Bay Bridge, evidently in support of the Transbay Transit Terminal and the need for equal access to the Bay Bridge. Video is 7 min. 36 sec.
The 12th Birthday of San Francisco Critical Mass was celebrated with a creative and sociable roll through town, a birthday cake, an unprecedented decentralized sound system effort (many rolling boom boxes and large and small sound systems all tuned to the same pirate radio station) and even a bit of demonstration when cyclists mounted the Transbay Transit Terminal's ramps to the Bay Bridge. Police on motorcycles screamed in, splitting up the group, which could have but decided not to take the bridge (at this time).
The group would have left quietly together but because of the police hysteria, the hundreds (probably thousands) of cyclists were split up into multiple groups, amplifying the effect throughout the city. Some paid a price due to equipment being damaged by the police action, but no arrests were seen by this reporter.
The Transbay Terminal, a priceless piece of the future of alternative transportation for the people, is always under threat from real estate interests who have wanted to gut it and redevelop it for years, and there is plenty of reason to demand immediate attention to the need for equal access to the Bay Bridge which rises up from and above the Terminal. Thus it's quite appropriate that the cyclists took the authorities by surprise by rolling up onto the lofty ramps of the Terminal.
Many people think we bicycle and pedestrian advocates won the fight for equal access to the Bay Bridge. Far from it! Despite promises, the car-first authorities fought long and hard to suppress the widespread public enthusiasm for the idea. There are major upsets forseeable on the horizon where the long-fought and hard-won promise to provide such access for bicycles and pedestrians may be stolen in a sea of graft, sleight of hand, abuse of authority and porkbelly concrete contracts.
The potential for interurban rail on the Bay Bridge is also being stolen, with the construction of the enormously costly and functionally defficient new east span, and the planned demolition of the stronger and more inexpensively retrofit-able existing east span.
In short: the transportation system is full of corruption just like the rest of this society, and when people can't get to jobs, services, or other human needs, you can blame the racism, classism, and greed of those who control it.
Critical Mass on the other hand brings freedom, joy and purity to the streets of a society otherwise mired in war and exploitation.
The Bike the Bridge! movement was a sustained campaign in the late 90's which included direct action as well as public outreach, demonstrations, and hundreds of hearings. You can piece together some of that legacy in archival web pages at http://www.bikethebridge.org/. For more background on corruption and the Bay Bridge, check out http://www.oaklandbridge.com/
Critical Mass happens on the last Friday of each month in San Francisco, meeting at 5:30 at Justin "Pee Wee" Herman Plaza, near the Ferry Terminal. In Berkeley it meets on the second Friday, 5:30, Downtown Berkeley BART (on "Constitution Plaza"). http://www.berkeleycriticalmass.org/ Critical Mass has spread to over 325 cities around the world since its beginning in San Francisco in September of 1992. What a wild ride it's been!
Note: The video is long in a way, but mostly to show what it's like biking up on the terminal. The sound quality is wacky (echo) because the reporter was using a borrowed hand-held digital camera (not a video camera) that takes little movies. Listen for the unexpected comments like "Have you ever made pickled green tomatoes?" and the nude cyclist, bike lifts showing defiance of the automotive tyranny, and other creative expressions.
The group would have left quietly together but because of the police hysteria, the hundreds (probably thousands) of cyclists were split up into multiple groups, amplifying the effect throughout the city. Some paid a price due to equipment being damaged by the police action, but no arrests were seen by this reporter.
The Transbay Terminal, a priceless piece of the future of alternative transportation for the people, is always under threat from real estate interests who have wanted to gut it and redevelop it for years, and there is plenty of reason to demand immediate attention to the need for equal access to the Bay Bridge which rises up from and above the Terminal. Thus it's quite appropriate that the cyclists took the authorities by surprise by rolling up onto the lofty ramps of the Terminal.
Many people think we bicycle and pedestrian advocates won the fight for equal access to the Bay Bridge. Far from it! Despite promises, the car-first authorities fought long and hard to suppress the widespread public enthusiasm for the idea. There are major upsets forseeable on the horizon where the long-fought and hard-won promise to provide such access for bicycles and pedestrians may be stolen in a sea of graft, sleight of hand, abuse of authority and porkbelly concrete contracts.
The potential for interurban rail on the Bay Bridge is also being stolen, with the construction of the enormously costly and functionally defficient new east span, and the planned demolition of the stronger and more inexpensively retrofit-able existing east span.
In short: the transportation system is full of corruption just like the rest of this society, and when people can't get to jobs, services, or other human needs, you can blame the racism, classism, and greed of those who control it.
Critical Mass on the other hand brings freedom, joy and purity to the streets of a society otherwise mired in war and exploitation.
The Bike the Bridge! movement was a sustained campaign in the late 90's which included direct action as well as public outreach, demonstrations, and hundreds of hearings. You can piece together some of that legacy in archival web pages at http://www.bikethebridge.org/. For more background on corruption and the Bay Bridge, check out http://www.oaklandbridge.com/
Critical Mass happens on the last Friday of each month in San Francisco, meeting at 5:30 at Justin "Pee Wee" Herman Plaza, near the Ferry Terminal. In Berkeley it meets on the second Friday, 5:30, Downtown Berkeley BART (on "Constitution Plaza"). http://www.berkeleycriticalmass.org/ Critical Mass has spread to over 325 cities around the world since its beginning in San Francisco in September of 1992. What a wild ride it's been!
Note: The video is long in a way, but mostly to show what it's like biking up on the terminal. The sound quality is wacky (echo) because the reporter was using a borrowed hand-held digital camera (not a video camera) that takes little movies. Listen for the unexpected comments like "Have you ever made pickled green tomatoes?" and the nude cyclist, bike lifts showing defiance of the automotive tyranny, and other creative expressions.
For more information:
http://www.critical-mass.org/
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
What of that upturn of the camera to the flocks of birds going by, you may ask?
Merely our feathered friends coming by to bless us on our way, of course! Critical Mass is a flock as well, or at least a flocculus (aggregated mass of loosely associated tufts, as in cotton). Geese work cooperatively, taking turns breaking wind at the front, and we love to break wind!!! Nothing like the wind from the rear while on a bike.
But seriously folks, geese travel in harmony, ever dynamically in flux, calling out to one another, and if one gets tired, sick or injured, at least two more fall out of the flock to stay with her or himgoose.
And the moon was close to full.
Merely our feathered friends coming by to bless us on our way, of course! Critical Mass is a flock as well, or at least a flocculus (aggregated mass of loosely associated tufts, as in cotton). Geese work cooperatively, taking turns breaking wind at the front, and we love to break wind!!! Nothing like the wind from the rear while on a bike.
But seriously folks, geese travel in harmony, ever dynamically in flux, calling out to one another, and if one gets tired, sick or injured, at least two more fall out of the flock to stay with her or himgoose.
And the moon was close to full.
For more information:
http://www.critical-mass.org
Hm, where is Transit Man when you need him? What kind of vehicle will he been seen driving next- a motorcycle, a car (biodiesel still pollutes)...next will he have his own helicopter?
funny, wasn't someone hereabouts just arguing that the bike people wanted buses as alternatives for mobility-impaired people, over cars? but here, biciclists are clearly venting against buses.
so which is it? the fella holding up the bike is making his argument apparent enough. it's wonderful for him he's got two good legs to stand on......
bike snobs, oh yes.
so which is it? the fella holding up the bike is making his argument apparent enough. it's wonderful for him he's got two good legs to stand on......
bike snobs, oh yes.
Someone wrote: "funny, wasn't someone hereabouts just arguing that the bike people wanted buses as alternatives for mobility-impaired people, over cars? but here, biciclists [sic] are clearly venting against buses."
No, that's not correct. Nobody I saw was "venting against buses," that's ridiculous and preposterous. Yes, buses were slowed some by the action, with the greatest delay caused by the police action. Yes, someone was bouncing on the bumper of a bus from behind. playfully, doing no harm. No, there was no intention to disrupt public transit for its own sake.
Critical Mass certainly has an effect on all ground transportation in its vicinity. However, riders can clear a path very quickly, as demonstrated whenever a fire truck comes through. Bikes are more space efficient and adaptable/movable than motor vehicles. Riders often call to let a bus through when they can.
Many if not all transit agencies do have a history of harboring and even institutionalizing discrimination against bicycling (and even walking!). Some bus drivers have been known to attack bicyclists and be reckless generally. Access to transit is unnecessarily limited (e.g., bringing your bike on an empty owl bus when it's the only way across the car-only bridge in the middle of the night). Sensitivity training for drivers is greatly lacking. However, the bike movement has done much to foster solidarity and make slow but incremental improvements. The examples are too long to list here but they include improved access to BART, symbiosis between buses and bike lanes, bike racks on buses (which required statewide legislation, believe it or not) and attended secure bicycle parking facilities (like the one the Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition operates in Berkeley, http://www.bfbc.org/).
In short, the issues with the Transbay Transit Terminal are so important and concern every bus or train across the Bay for the next Century, not just a 5-10 minute inconvenience mostly caused by the police (as usuall).
No, that's not correct. Nobody I saw was "venting against buses," that's ridiculous and preposterous. Yes, buses were slowed some by the action, with the greatest delay caused by the police action. Yes, someone was bouncing on the bumper of a bus from behind. playfully, doing no harm. No, there was no intention to disrupt public transit for its own sake.
Critical Mass certainly has an effect on all ground transportation in its vicinity. However, riders can clear a path very quickly, as demonstrated whenever a fire truck comes through. Bikes are more space efficient and adaptable/movable than motor vehicles. Riders often call to let a bus through when they can.
Many if not all transit agencies do have a history of harboring and even institutionalizing discrimination against bicycling (and even walking!). Some bus drivers have been known to attack bicyclists and be reckless generally. Access to transit is unnecessarily limited (e.g., bringing your bike on an empty owl bus when it's the only way across the car-only bridge in the middle of the night). Sensitivity training for drivers is greatly lacking. However, the bike movement has done much to foster solidarity and make slow but incremental improvements. The examples are too long to list here but they include improved access to BART, symbiosis between buses and bike lanes, bike racks on buses (which required statewide legislation, believe it or not) and attended secure bicycle parking facilities (like the one the Bicycle-Friendly Berkeley Coalition operates in Berkeley, http://www.bfbc.org/).
In short, the issues with the Transbay Transit Terminal are so important and concern every bus or train across the Bay for the next Century, not just a 5-10 minute inconvenience mostly caused by the police (as usuall).
Haha!
Nice try, GM!
Transit Man has NEVER been in any car or on any motorcycle!
Don't believe the hype!
All power to the people!
Nice try, GM!
Transit Man has NEVER been in any car or on any motorcycle!
Don't believe the hype!
All power to the people!
For more information:
http://guest.xinet.com/bike/superheroes
I just have to say that biodiesel is getting a bad rap here. The problem with Transit Man getting into a car isn't that "biodiesel still pollutes," it's that cars kill everything, and Transit Man is a hero standing up for everyone's mobility and quality of life. The destructiveness of cars to social equity and the environment and the livability of our cities is so huge, that pollution -- as bad as it is -- is just a small part of the problem.
Biodiesel is one of the least polluting fuels in existence. Because it's made from plants, which use the CO2 that is produced when it's burned, the cycle is closed and so biodiesel arguably doesn't add to greenhouse gasses. Of course, it's not so simple because producing biodiesel, people make it more like 77% efficient. Biodiesel can be made from waste oils (deep fryers) and that is even more clean-burning. This is because much of the nitrogen is used up in frying, so you don't get as much NOX emissions. Plus, you're doubling the use cycle of the oil. Much waste oil is illegally dumped, by the way, so salvaging it is doing a service, although burning anything is bad.
Just adding as little as 2% biodiesel to "dino-diesel" significantly improves emmissions, which is well worth doing because diesel emissions are REALLY bad.
More and more locations are offering biodiesel in the Bay Area. While there's no way that the USA can power its entire "fleet" of cars on biodiesel (without growing for oil on every inch of land), individuals can make a difference and for truly important diesel uses, like tractors and recycling trucks, it could keep our cities going long after petroleum oil is scarce.
I just have to say that if anyone, Transitman included, happens to get into a car that's run by biodiesel, we can thank him for making at least that conscientious gesture to reduce the impact of the car. And hey, he might have a good reason to drive, like, sneaking up on Captain Caltrans! (saw the website, sweet)
Biodiesel is one of the least polluting fuels in existence. Because it's made from plants, which use the CO2 that is produced when it's burned, the cycle is closed and so biodiesel arguably doesn't add to greenhouse gasses. Of course, it's not so simple because producing biodiesel, people make it more like 77% efficient. Biodiesel can be made from waste oils (deep fryers) and that is even more clean-burning. This is because much of the nitrogen is used up in frying, so you don't get as much NOX emissions. Plus, you're doubling the use cycle of the oil. Much waste oil is illegally dumped, by the way, so salvaging it is doing a service, although burning anything is bad.
Just adding as little as 2% biodiesel to "dino-diesel" significantly improves emmissions, which is well worth doing because diesel emissions are REALLY bad.
More and more locations are offering biodiesel in the Bay Area. While there's no way that the USA can power its entire "fleet" of cars on biodiesel (without growing for oil on every inch of land), individuals can make a difference and for truly important diesel uses, like tractors and recycling trucks, it could keep our cities going long after petroleum oil is scarce.
I just have to say that if anyone, Transitman included, happens to get into a car that's run by biodiesel, we can thank him for making at least that conscientious gesture to reduce the impact of the car. And hey, he might have a good reason to drive, like, sneaking up on Captain Caltrans! (saw the website, sweet)
There is so much more involved in the car question than pollution. Bio-diesel is an answer to only one of many problems created by cars and motorized traffic.
No doubt! Biodiesel is great and all, will save some lives during the major die-off that's in store, but basically is no major solution to the car problem. A biodiesel car still takes up half the land of the city, still uses 3-4 years of its operating energy just to be built, still causes noise pollution, still dominates the commons, still causes over TWO MILLION disabling injuries a year in the U.S. and millions of fatalities world wide, and that's just the tip of the swiftly melting ice cap peeps.
Get wise.
But it is hecka better than gasoline. here's a site with stats on biodiesel vs. gasoline.
http://www.grassolean.com/?textFile=emissions
Get wise.
But it is hecka better than gasoline. here's a site with stats on biodiesel vs. gasoline.
http://www.grassolean.com/?textFile=emissions
that sort of constant barrage of optimism.
"the major die-off that's in store"
just keep it up, mr/ms cheney. you'll have em walking with baby and groceries in no time!!!!!
"the major die-off that's in store"
just keep it up, mr/ms cheney. you'll have em walking with baby and groceries in no time!!!!!
Burn alcohol.
burning alcohol is not some big solution.
ethanol reduces pollutants and that's why some states require it. but it is NOT some magical free energy substitute for the way "WE" currently live.
last i heard, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol provides.
meanwhile, biking and walking while drunk is fun and you can do it anytime unlike BARTing while drunk. bay bridge bike lanes mean less drunk driving.
ethanol reduces pollutants and that's why some states require it. but it is NOT some magical free energy substitute for the way "WE" currently live.
last i heard, it takes more energy to produce ethanol than the ethanol provides.
meanwhile, biking and walking while drunk is fun and you can do it anytime unlike BARTing while drunk. bay bridge bike lanes mean less drunk driving.
It's no fun in a blizzard.
bike riding is a year round mode of transit:
http://www.bikewinter.org/bikewinter0102/main.php
Yes, Virginia, there is Winter Biking!
Tips from Winter Cyclists
I'm no cycling guru whose blood has been thickened on arctic expeditions. I'm just an urban bike commuter who, through experience and advice from friends, has gone from being a fair weather to all weather cyclist. The process was gradual. The first winter I didn't invest in special gear; I just piled on what I had. I learned how to ride in a range of weather conditions simply by doing it and watching my friends. Winter biking isn't something difficult, something you need to equip for. The only equipment you really need is the willingness to do it. - Gin Kilgore
The following tips are compiled from a variety of winter cyclists. If you attend a Bike Winter class, you will see the tips covered more extensively, with demonstrations of the tips, as well as question and answer periods.
Winter biking essentials:
* Willingness
* Waterproof, wind proof outer jacket (does not need to be insulated--you'll generate plenty of warmth)
* Warm, waterproof glove/mitten combos that do not compromise your dexterity
* Warm, waterproof shoe/boots with warm socks and room for toe wiggling
* Warm, but thin head covering that will fit under your helmet and protect your ears
* Wicking base layers, like silk or synthetics
* Weekly chain lubing
* Worn brake pad replacement
* White headlight, red backlight and reflective tape. (OK, folks get by without these, but I think they help a lot with visibility)
Non-essentials, but darn helpful
* Fenders
* Waterproof, wind proof pants
* Armpit zippers in the jacket to help prevent overheating
* A sense of adventure
http://www.bikewinter.org/bikewinter0102/main.php
Yes, Virginia, there is Winter Biking!
Tips from Winter Cyclists
I'm no cycling guru whose blood has been thickened on arctic expeditions. I'm just an urban bike commuter who, through experience and advice from friends, has gone from being a fair weather to all weather cyclist. The process was gradual. The first winter I didn't invest in special gear; I just piled on what I had. I learned how to ride in a range of weather conditions simply by doing it and watching my friends. Winter biking isn't something difficult, something you need to equip for. The only equipment you really need is the willingness to do it. - Gin Kilgore
The following tips are compiled from a variety of winter cyclists. If you attend a Bike Winter class, you will see the tips covered more extensively, with demonstrations of the tips, as well as question and answer periods.
Winter biking essentials:
* Willingness
* Waterproof, wind proof outer jacket (does not need to be insulated--you'll generate plenty of warmth)
* Warm, waterproof glove/mitten combos that do not compromise your dexterity
* Warm, waterproof shoe/boots with warm socks and room for toe wiggling
* Warm, but thin head covering that will fit under your helmet and protect your ears
* Wicking base layers, like silk or synthetics
* Weekly chain lubing
* Worn brake pad replacement
* White headlight, red backlight and reflective tape. (OK, folks get by without these, but I think they help a lot with visibility)
Non-essentials, but darn helpful
* Fenders
* Waterproof, wind proof pants
* Armpit zippers in the jacket to help prevent overheating
* A sense of adventure
and you don't live out in the country somewhere and have to get to town to make a living. But no way it's fun.
Why do you wish to inflict such hardship on fellow workers? Are you anti-working class or what?
Why do you wish to inflict such hardship on fellow workers? Are you anti-working class or what?
don't be such a fuddy duddy. If people want to ride in the winter it's an option. If you want to ride the bus, go ahead. If you want to drive your SUV, well I won't say what that makes you, just don't kill the rest of us.
If people *are able* to ride in the winter it's an option. A lot of people aren't able to ride at all.
To imply that not riding a bicycle means you drive and SUV is a false dichotomy. Besides, neither the size of a vehicle nor how many drive wheels it has, is the problem. The problem is the burning of fuel that is non renewable and pollutes. Burn alcohol. It's renewable. It works for Brazil. It could work here. It could work everywhere.
To imply that not riding a bicycle means you drive and SUV is a false dichotomy. Besides, neither the size of a vehicle nor how many drive wheels it has, is the problem. The problem is the burning of fuel that is non renewable and pollutes. Burn alcohol. It's renewable. It works for Brazil. It could work here. It could work everywhere.
four wheels baaa. baaa. baaaa.
you live in right? perhaps April in Paris is nicer, but we all happen to live here. now:
what does alcohol fuel have to do with discouraging cyclists from commuting in the winter? You said biking is not fun in a blizzard, some people happen to have found a solution to that. NO IT'S NOT A SOLUTION FOR YOU. no big deal.
Also, some people have valid reasons for driving, you may be one of them. But not as many people need to as think they need to.
what does alcohol fuel have to do with discouraging cyclists from commuting in the winter? You said biking is not fun in a blizzard, some people happen to have found a solution to that. NO IT'S NOT A SOLUTION FOR YOU. no big deal.
Also, some people have valid reasons for driving, you may be one of them. But not as many people need to as think they need to.
and the rest of the world is wrong.
it's all very simple, really...
it's all very simple, really...
but I suspect you just want something to rag about.
no shortage of that round here...
you missed a spot. Cleaning is therapeutic. Ask Lady Macbeth.
is gonna tear down the wall!
tear down the wall!
tear down the wall!
tear down the wall!....
tear down the wall!
tear down the wall!
tear down the wall!....
BAN "ANGEL SPAM"
would help you with that come down...
Dennis Rodman: that angel is a freak!
I did no such thing. Stop putting words into my mouth. it's rude. It's dishonest. It's very bad form.
(1.) It wasn't a "tirade." It was cogent criticism. If you don't want to be criticized, don’t do things that need to be criticized.
(2.) It wasn't against "people who use other forms of transportation." It was against people who publically bad mouth cars and their drivers in such a way as to discredit radicals, and make us look like just another crazy cult from way out in wild, weird, whacky California.
If you want to ride bikes, more power to you. The more people who ride bikes the better, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk people into riding bicycles, go right ahead. But if you do it in a way that insults and alienates fellow workers, you need to be criticized. You’re hurting the cause, and that hurts the planet. No, you cannot hurt the planet without being criticized. Driving cars does not hurt the planet. Burning fossil fuel hurts the planet. Stop burning fossil fuel. And stop insulting fellow workers. You’re making us all look bad.
(1.) It wasn't a "tirade." It was cogent criticism. If you don't want to be criticized, don’t do things that need to be criticized.
(2.) It wasn't against "people who use other forms of transportation." It was against people who publically bad mouth cars and their drivers in such a way as to discredit radicals, and make us look like just another crazy cult from way out in wild, weird, whacky California.
If you want to ride bikes, more power to you. The more people who ride bikes the better, as far as I'm concerned. If you want to talk people into riding bicycles, go right ahead. But if you do it in a way that insults and alienates fellow workers, you need to be criticized. You’re hurting the cause, and that hurts the planet. No, you cannot hurt the planet without being criticized. Driving cars does not hurt the planet. Burning fossil fuel hurts the planet. Stop burning fossil fuel. And stop insulting fellow workers. You’re making us all look bad.
for what does and does not offend workers. You use the term "workers" for effect to make your patter more pc. That's bullshit.
The day I have to go around indymedia worrying about who the fuck I'm going to offend, it's going to be a cold day in hell. You're not the representative of all the workers here, and in fact many here have no respect for you whatsoever.
The day I have to go around indymedia worrying about who the fuck I'm going to offend, it's going to be a cold day in hell. You're not the representative of all the workers here, and in fact many here have no respect for you whatsoever.
by your argument that makes you anti-worker.
...you were expecting to find happy car talk here perhaps? well then you're a troll, and -you- can butt out or start another thread about something related to that topic.
As for trust funds, we're both a little old for that. But how's yours doing, I heard on another thread that you're begging for money online like that other wacko.
As for trust funds, we're both a little old for that. But how's yours doing, I heard on another thread that you're begging for money online like that other wacko.
is there critical mass in sf this Friday Oct 29th? is there a website to send out a msg to make it a bike against bush/halloween ride. thx email me at jsanetra [at] peoplepchq.com
of this month, and the rest of us workers will not only make you care, you might even enjoy it.
For more information:
http://www.scorcher.org/sfcriticalmass/
I will not tiptoe around indymedia. People are offended all the time. Check out the threads on the Local 2 strike. The progressive snake eats its own tail constantly.
It's part of the internet, there's nothing wrong with it and we don't need you to police it, and decide which is a good worker and which is not. As someone who has helped negotiate contracts and rides regularly in the mass, I don't need nessie to tell me what is what about workers or critical mass. That's all.
Bicycling is liberation. If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough. If one person switches to that form of transport, it even helps people who need to drive by decreasing congestion. The auto industry is also linked to the oil industry and our political policies of rampant oppression. Is that good for workers? No.
It's part of the internet, there's nothing wrong with it and we don't need you to police it, and decide which is a good worker and which is not. As someone who has helped negotiate contracts and rides regularly in the mass, I don't need nessie to tell me what is what about workers or critical mass. That's all.
Bicycling is liberation. If you can't see it, you're not looking hard enough. If one person switches to that form of transport, it even helps people who need to drive by decreasing congestion. The auto industry is also linked to the oil industry and our political policies of rampant oppression. Is that good for workers? No.
Hey now,
You really can't make an absurd statement like, "Driving does not hurt the planet, burning fuel hurts the planet," and not get called on it.
This "workers versus alternative transportation argument" is bullshit.
Did you know that there are many people who can't get to jobs because we have allowed ourselves to develop a car-first system rather than an equal-access system? That's what the original poster was talking about and that's what many of the social equity people concerned with tranportation and land use are talking about. It's not a new problem at all, but the problem is more systemic than just automobile industry having its way after world war II.
Did you know the Warren Commission issued a repotr on the Watts riots saying that the underlying cause was the lack of access to jobs, but that those jobs existed?
Did you know that many of the lowest-income workers cannot get a car to get to the damn jobs?
Did you know that cities can be designed so that nobody needs a car?
Did you know that there are people with DISABILITIES who can't drive?
Did you know that cars harm the environment even if they're running on some kind of magic free energy source that doesn't pollute? The roads cut up habitat and spur development which chews up the land and creates unsustainable "communities" in far-reaching areas. This leads to deforestation, species extinction, a great deal of additional pollution, and more.
"Workers" are everyone. Right now our system is tremendously inequitable. But there iare things bigger than
"working," such as having a place to live for future generations.
Get real! Until then this whole red herring bullshit is just divide and conquer crap.
You really can't make an absurd statement like, "Driving does not hurt the planet, burning fuel hurts the planet," and not get called on it.
This "workers versus alternative transportation argument" is bullshit.
Did you know that there are many people who can't get to jobs because we have allowed ourselves to develop a car-first system rather than an equal-access system? That's what the original poster was talking about and that's what many of the social equity people concerned with tranportation and land use are talking about. It's not a new problem at all, but the problem is more systemic than just automobile industry having its way after world war II.
Did you know the Warren Commission issued a repotr on the Watts riots saying that the underlying cause was the lack of access to jobs, but that those jobs existed?
Did you know that many of the lowest-income workers cannot get a car to get to the damn jobs?
Did you know that cities can be designed so that nobody needs a car?
Did you know that there are people with DISABILITIES who can't drive?
Did you know that cars harm the environment even if they're running on some kind of magic free energy source that doesn't pollute? The roads cut up habitat and spur development which chews up the land and creates unsustainable "communities" in far-reaching areas. This leads to deforestation, species extinction, a great deal of additional pollution, and more.
"Workers" are everyone. Right now our system is tremendously inequitable. But there iare things bigger than
"working," such as having a place to live for future generations.
Get real! Until then this whole red herring bullshit is just divide and conquer crap.
>Did you know that there are many people who can't get to jobs because we have allowed ourselves to develop a car-first system rather than an equal-access system?
"Wrong. “We” didn’t develop the system. It was forced upon us by our rulers. We have no say. If you think we do, you’re deluded. If you want a say, seize it."
*DO you deny that it's a car first system?
>Did you know that many of the lowest-income workers cannot get a car to get to the damn jobs?
"Yes. That has nothing to do with cars, though. That is a function of poor organization on the part of the working class. When we are better organized, it wont be a problem."
*It won't be a problem my ass. It has to do with the structure of the entire system and what it's based on. The economy all revolves around cars, oil, and the infrastructure supporting that addiction. Which keeps workers enslaved serving.
>Did you know that cities can be designed so that nobody needs a car?
"Yes. Did you know that many people don’t live in cities? Did you know that there is more to life than what we need?"
*Did you know that many people DO live in cities and they far outnumber those who don't? It's congestion and transportation in urban areas we're talking about.
>Did you know that there are people with DISABILITIES who can't drive?
"I am acutely aware of this. There are other people with disabilities who can’t ride a bike. What about them?"
*They ride paratransit if they qualify as a disabled person and get a disabled placard if they don't.
>Did you know that cars harm the environment even if they're running on some kind of magic free energy source that doesn't pollute?
"A source of energy that doesn’t pollute is not magic. It’s science. It doesn’t need to be invented. It already exists. It’s proven. It works."
* that's not the point. see below.
>The roads cut up habitat and spur development which chews up the land and creates unsustainable "communities" in far-reaching areas.
"Roads *provide* access to our habitats, and make communities in far reaching areas *be* sustainable."
*Again we're not talking about the wild and wooly forest. We are talking about congested urban areas.
>This leads to deforestation,
"That’s absurd. Unsustainable logging practices lead to deforestation."
*Logging roads also lead to deforestation, as do pollutants (Black Forest in Germany), and global warming.
>species extinction,
"(1.) No it doesn’t.
(2.) Extinction is part of Nature’s way. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. If the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct, humans wouldn’t even exist. "
*Yes it does. First you say it doesn't, then you say it's not a bad thing if it does. Both ways huh?
>a great deal of additional pollution, and more.
"Again with the pollution. How many times do i have to say this? The bulk of the pollution that cars produce comes from the fuel they burn. Burn non polluting fuel, and that part of the problem goes away. "
*It's not the pollution stupid, it's the infrastructure, the system that enslaves, the sprawl, there's quite a long list really.
>But there iare things bigger than"working," such as having a place to live for future generations.
"Then stop over breeding. That’s the root source of most of our environmental problems. Reduce our population to a sustainable level. "
*Fine, abortion on demand, I'm down with that.
>Get real! Until then this whole red herring bullshit is just divide and conquer crap.
"It is you who are dividing the working class. You are alienating the vast, overwhelming majority of us. Stop doing that. At the very least, stop doing it the name of Indymedia. You’re making the rest of Indymedia look bad."
*Hoo boy, here we go again, ending with the usual policing of indymedia of statement.
"Wrong. “We” didn’t develop the system. It was forced upon us by our rulers. We have no say. If you think we do, you’re deluded. If you want a say, seize it."
*DO you deny that it's a car first system?
>Did you know that many of the lowest-income workers cannot get a car to get to the damn jobs?
"Yes. That has nothing to do with cars, though. That is a function of poor organization on the part of the working class. When we are better organized, it wont be a problem."
*It won't be a problem my ass. It has to do with the structure of the entire system and what it's based on. The economy all revolves around cars, oil, and the infrastructure supporting that addiction. Which keeps workers enslaved serving.
>Did you know that cities can be designed so that nobody needs a car?
"Yes. Did you know that many people don’t live in cities? Did you know that there is more to life than what we need?"
*Did you know that many people DO live in cities and they far outnumber those who don't? It's congestion and transportation in urban areas we're talking about.
>Did you know that there are people with DISABILITIES who can't drive?
"I am acutely aware of this. There are other people with disabilities who can’t ride a bike. What about them?"
*They ride paratransit if they qualify as a disabled person and get a disabled placard if they don't.
>Did you know that cars harm the environment even if they're running on some kind of magic free energy source that doesn't pollute?
"A source of energy that doesn’t pollute is not magic. It’s science. It doesn’t need to be invented. It already exists. It’s proven. It works."
* that's not the point. see below.
>The roads cut up habitat and spur development which chews up the land and creates unsustainable "communities" in far-reaching areas.
"Roads *provide* access to our habitats, and make communities in far reaching areas *be* sustainable."
*Again we're not talking about the wild and wooly forest. We are talking about congested urban areas.
>This leads to deforestation,
"That’s absurd. Unsustainable logging practices lead to deforestation."
*Logging roads also lead to deforestation, as do pollutants (Black Forest in Germany), and global warming.
>species extinction,
"(1.) No it doesn’t.
(2.) Extinction is part of Nature’s way. It’s not necessarily a bad thing. If the dinosaurs hadn’t gone extinct, humans wouldn’t even exist. "
*Yes it does. First you say it doesn't, then you say it's not a bad thing if it does. Both ways huh?
>a great deal of additional pollution, and more.
"Again with the pollution. How many times do i have to say this? The bulk of the pollution that cars produce comes from the fuel they burn. Burn non polluting fuel, and that part of the problem goes away. "
*It's not the pollution stupid, it's the infrastructure, the system that enslaves, the sprawl, there's quite a long list really.
>But there iare things bigger than"working," such as having a place to live for future generations.
"Then stop over breeding. That’s the root source of most of our environmental problems. Reduce our population to a sustainable level. "
*Fine, abortion on demand, I'm down with that.
>Get real! Until then this whole red herring bullshit is just divide and conquer crap.
"It is you who are dividing the working class. You are alienating the vast, overwhelming majority of us. Stop doing that. At the very least, stop doing it the name of Indymedia. You’re making the rest of Indymedia look bad."
*Hoo boy, here we go again, ending with the usual policing of indymedia of statement.
how dare you now claim that roadbuilding doesn't destroy habitat? and where on earth is your fabled non polluting energy source?
how much are you paid to spew disinformation on indymedia?
how much are you paid to spew disinformation on indymedia?
...does the pedestrian or bicyclist who is mowed down by an automobile care what it's fueled by?
http://tinyurl.com/4xkm4
http://tinyurl.com/ypmgt
http://tinyurl.com/4xkm4
http://tinyurl.com/ypmgt
Logging roads provide a funnel of air for forest fires. And clearcutting has to be the #1 for deforestation, and at a guess human habitation second?
but how can anyone assume, like above, that the system of cars/oil was forced on everyone when it's more likely due to cheap and lots of oil, plus henryfords assembly line which made cars affordable to almost everyone?
but how can anyone assume, like above, that the system of cars/oil was forced on everyone when it's more likely due to cheap and lots of oil, plus henryfords assembly line which made cars affordable to almost everyone?
---DO you deny that it's a car first system?
"Emphatically. It’s a money first system. "
***And what do we sell more of in this "money first system"?
"Bullshit. The economy revolves around credit and debt. "
***Just because YOU happen to disagree, it is not bullshit. Credit and debt means that people are buying something. what are they buying?
"Then be specific. Stop attacking drivers. It’s not their fault there isn’t adequate public transport. "
***Yes in fact they are partly to blame. The funding goes to highways to accommodate what people most desire, the right to drive their single occupancy vehicle.
If you recall, Schwarzeneggar gave back the increase in license fees to drivers. That paid not only for transit grants, which are being cut back, but also basic services for cities.
---They ride paratransit if they qualify as a disabled person and get a disabled placard if they don't.
"Paratransit runs on gasoline. "
***that's not the issue. Some of the vehicles could be converted to alternative fuel, although not all since the services are contracted out to smaller providers. It wouldn't matter anyway, the government is required to provide access under the ADA.
---Again we're not talking about the wild and wooly forest. We are talking about congested urban areas.
"If you live around here, that *is* your habitat. "
***Well yes it is, thanks.
---Logging roads also lead to deforestation,
"Unsustainable logging practices lead to deforestation. Most road have nothing to do with logging. "
***The cancellation of the roadless rule in national forests will have a significant impact on deforestation. Making new fire roads is just another excuse to go in and get out the timber.
"Most acid rain does not come from car exhausts. It comes from electricity production and manufacturing. But the part that does come from car exhausts would disappear if we burned alcohol. "
***Not sure I agree with you there. I do know that with the inroads made by automakers into heavily populated countries such as China, auto emissions will increase proportionally.
"Global warming will indeed lead to deforestation in some areas. It will also lead to aforestation in other areas. Look, climate changes. Get used to it. Climate has been changing since before there were humans, let alone cars. This is a fact of life. Adapt or die. "
***at the rate global warming is increasing, ignorance is bliss I guess. “Aforestation” due to global warming? Nice try.
"You lie. I said no such thing. I said that roads, in and of themselves, do not lead to species extinction. I did not say “it's not a bad thing if it does.” I said “it’s not . . . a bad thing,” period. I did not say “if it does.” You lie, you lie, you lie. Stop putting words into my mouth. It’s rude. It’s dishonest. It’s very bad form."
***Misinterpreting is not a lie. I do not lie. Not that I admit to misinterpreting you, but I do disagree with you.
"The infrastructure liberates. You want to go back to mud huts linked by foot paths? Be our guest. Move to New Guinea. Leave us alone. We have more sense. "
***You don't demonstrate it with that statement.
"I want Indymedia to make a difference in this world It can only do that if it is credible. When it publishes disinformation, misinformation, the raving of lunatics and insulting, alienating anti-worker diatribes, it discredits itself. I’m against that. Why aren’t you? "
***I'm just saying it's not your job to police this site. It has it's own organic and you can't control what happens here any more than I can. That's as it should be.
"But we *can* do away with pollution. Let’s concentrate on that, and let’s not alienate the bulk of the working class in the process. "
***You will inevitably alienate some of them, the question is how to make it easier for them to choose other options (when possible), that don't pollute and don't have the other negative effects mentioned above. I for one, know we will not live in a world without cars. I'm a realist.
"Emphatically. It’s a money first system. "
***And what do we sell more of in this "money first system"?
"Bullshit. The economy revolves around credit and debt. "
***Just because YOU happen to disagree, it is not bullshit. Credit and debt means that people are buying something. what are they buying?
"Then be specific. Stop attacking drivers. It’s not their fault there isn’t adequate public transport. "
***Yes in fact they are partly to blame. The funding goes to highways to accommodate what people most desire, the right to drive their single occupancy vehicle.
If you recall, Schwarzeneggar gave back the increase in license fees to drivers. That paid not only for transit grants, which are being cut back, but also basic services for cities.
---They ride paratransit if they qualify as a disabled person and get a disabled placard if they don't.
"Paratransit runs on gasoline. "
***that's not the issue. Some of the vehicles could be converted to alternative fuel, although not all since the services are contracted out to smaller providers. It wouldn't matter anyway, the government is required to provide access under the ADA.
---Again we're not talking about the wild and wooly forest. We are talking about congested urban areas.
"If you live around here, that *is* your habitat. "
***Well yes it is, thanks.
---Logging roads also lead to deforestation,
"Unsustainable logging practices lead to deforestation. Most road have nothing to do with logging. "
***The cancellation of the roadless rule in national forests will have a significant impact on deforestation. Making new fire roads is just another excuse to go in and get out the timber.
"Most acid rain does not come from car exhausts. It comes from electricity production and manufacturing. But the part that does come from car exhausts would disappear if we burned alcohol. "
***Not sure I agree with you there. I do know that with the inroads made by automakers into heavily populated countries such as China, auto emissions will increase proportionally.
"Global warming will indeed lead to deforestation in some areas. It will also lead to aforestation in other areas. Look, climate changes. Get used to it. Climate has been changing since before there were humans, let alone cars. This is a fact of life. Adapt or die. "
***at the rate global warming is increasing, ignorance is bliss I guess. “Aforestation” due to global warming? Nice try.
"You lie. I said no such thing. I said that roads, in and of themselves, do not lead to species extinction. I did not say “it's not a bad thing if it does.” I said “it’s not . . . a bad thing,” period. I did not say “if it does.” You lie, you lie, you lie. Stop putting words into my mouth. It’s rude. It’s dishonest. It’s very bad form."
***Misinterpreting is not a lie. I do not lie. Not that I admit to misinterpreting you, but I do disagree with you.
"The infrastructure liberates. You want to go back to mud huts linked by foot paths? Be our guest. Move to New Guinea. Leave us alone. We have more sense. "
***You don't demonstrate it with that statement.
"I want Indymedia to make a difference in this world It can only do that if it is credible. When it publishes disinformation, misinformation, the raving of lunatics and insulting, alienating anti-worker diatribes, it discredits itself. I’m against that. Why aren’t you? "
***I'm just saying it's not your job to police this site. It has it's own organic and you can't control what happens here any more than I can. That's as it should be.
"But we *can* do away with pollution. Let’s concentrate on that, and let’s not alienate the bulk of the working class in the process. "
***You will inevitably alienate some of them, the question is how to make it easier for them to choose other options (when possible), that don't pollute and don't have the other negative effects mentioned above. I for one, know we will not live in a world without cars. I'm a realist.
*Credit and debt means that people are buying something. what are they buying?
"They buy everything they need, food, shelter, clothing, medicine, everything. The biggest bite is housing. "
***You're living in a dream world if you don't think auto sales make up a huge portion of that purchase. As well as insurance, fuel, maintenance, fees, etc.
*Yes in fact they are partly to blame. The funding goes to highways to accommodate what people most desire, the right to drive their single occupancy vehicle.
"Driving a single occupancy vehicle hurts no one but the other drivers. Burning gasoline in it hurts us all. "
***That is simply not true. There is sprawl, caused partly by the building of monster homes ("the biggest bite is housing") to accomodate more and larger vehicles. There is the cost of increasing and maintaining roadways. There is the human cost of people who are killed by motor vehicles. The fuel is a significant portion of the damage, yes. But say we had alcohol powered vehicles. Can you demonstrate that there is no environmental impact whatsoever in the formulation of that kind of fuel? Even electric vehicles have a cost to the environment.
*If you recall, Schwarzeneggar gave back the increase in license fees to drivers. That paid not only for transit grants, which are being cut back, but also basic services for cities.
"What are you saying here, that taxes on individuals rather than corporations, should fund the state? is that what your saying? "
***No I'm saying that drivers should pay their fair share for the infrastructure they use. And it should fund improvements to other transit options to make it easier for all transportation users. Are you saying I should be paying taxes for highway improvements if I don't even drive? 'Cause I do.
*The cancellation of the roadless rule in national forests will have a significant impact on deforestation. Making new fire roads is just another excuse to go in and get out the timber.
"That’s ridiculous. It’s like blaming the soldier for the war "
***Actually it's more like blaming the fox for getting into the hen house.
*Not sure I agree with you there. I do know that with the inroads made by automakers into heavily populated countries such as China, auto emissions will increase proportionally.
"That depends what they burn in the motors. Right now, almost all Chinese pollution comes from coal. "
***They burn gasoline. And, they are not very stringent about emission standards. We're talking about auto pollution, as auto ownership is on a steep increase in China. They're even banning the ubiquitous bicycle from some roadways.
*at the rate global warming is increasing, ignorance is bliss I guess.
"We don’t know what that rate is or how steady it will be. We don’t even know all of the causes. We strongly suspect we are approaching a tipping point, though. We had better prepare "
***Alternative fuels will help, as will better transit, decreased auto dependency, and decreased industrial pollutants.
*“Aforestation” due to global warming? Nice try.
"Absolutely, without question, this will happen. Areas of the globe currently too cold to sustain forests will become warm enough. "
***At the rate they're chopping down rain forest, that may not make any difference at all. And a rising tide may raise all boats, but it would also make a few major cities require scuba gear. Is that what you're proposing?
*Misinterpreting is not a lie. I do not lie. Not that I admit to misinterpreting you, but I do disagree with you.
"Bullshit. Misinterpreting is only not a lie if you keep it to yourself. As soon as you say it out loud, you’re telling a lie. Just because you may happen to believe it, doesn’t make it any less of a lie. But not to worry. Lies and liars are welcome on this website, even coddled. This site is a haven for disinformation. "
***Hey you're allowed to post here aren't you? Nuff said.
*You don't demonstrate it with that statement.
"What are you saying here, that living in mud huts connected by foot paths makes sense for humanity? Is that what you’re saying? "
***No that's not what I'm saying. Unless you live in what's left of the Amazonian jungle.
*I'm just saying it's not your job to police this site. It has it's own organic and you can't control what happens here any more than I can. That's as it should be.
"The people whose job it is to police this site, aren’t doing their job. My job, as well as yours, is to point that out. I’m doing my job. Why aren’t you? Do you *like* to see Indymedia used to promote racism, ecocide and rightwing politics? No? Then get up off your sorry butts and do something about it. "
***nessie, anyone with any reason expects that crap and ignores it. Keep at it then, but you're wasting your time, and it certainly doesn't encourage anyone to seriously want to head over to sf.indymedia.
*I for one, know we will not live in a world without cars. I'm a realist.
"Then why attack and alienate their drivers? It’s self defeating behavior. Politics is numbers. We need these people. Stop making them think radicals are a pack of malicious lunatics, out to ruin their lives. "
***Making a reasoned argument for alternatives is not attacking drivers. Some of them will think you're nuts no matter what you say (and they will go absolutely raving apeshit ballistic telling you so). A lot depends on how the subject is broached. I could say to you, why do you waste your time trying to promote your agenda of progressive politics? People will try to marginalize you as well. It doesn't mean you should stop putting out the message.
"They buy everything they need, food, shelter, clothing, medicine, everything. The biggest bite is housing. "
***You're living in a dream world if you don't think auto sales make up a huge portion of that purchase. As well as insurance, fuel, maintenance, fees, etc.
*Yes in fact they are partly to blame. The funding goes to highways to accommodate what people most desire, the right to drive their single occupancy vehicle.
"Driving a single occupancy vehicle hurts no one but the other drivers. Burning gasoline in it hurts us all. "
***That is simply not true. There is sprawl, caused partly by the building of monster homes ("the biggest bite is housing") to accomodate more and larger vehicles. There is the cost of increasing and maintaining roadways. There is the human cost of people who are killed by motor vehicles. The fuel is a significant portion of the damage, yes. But say we had alcohol powered vehicles. Can you demonstrate that there is no environmental impact whatsoever in the formulation of that kind of fuel? Even electric vehicles have a cost to the environment.
*If you recall, Schwarzeneggar gave back the increase in license fees to drivers. That paid not only for transit grants, which are being cut back, but also basic services for cities.
"What are you saying here, that taxes on individuals rather than corporations, should fund the state? is that what your saying? "
***No I'm saying that drivers should pay their fair share for the infrastructure they use. And it should fund improvements to other transit options to make it easier for all transportation users. Are you saying I should be paying taxes for highway improvements if I don't even drive? 'Cause I do.
*The cancellation of the roadless rule in national forests will have a significant impact on deforestation. Making new fire roads is just another excuse to go in and get out the timber.
"That’s ridiculous. It’s like blaming the soldier for the war "
***Actually it's more like blaming the fox for getting into the hen house.
*Not sure I agree with you there. I do know that with the inroads made by automakers into heavily populated countries such as China, auto emissions will increase proportionally.
"That depends what they burn in the motors. Right now, almost all Chinese pollution comes from coal. "
***They burn gasoline. And, they are not very stringent about emission standards. We're talking about auto pollution, as auto ownership is on a steep increase in China. They're even banning the ubiquitous bicycle from some roadways.
*at the rate global warming is increasing, ignorance is bliss I guess.
"We don’t know what that rate is or how steady it will be. We don’t even know all of the causes. We strongly suspect we are approaching a tipping point, though. We had better prepare "
***Alternative fuels will help, as will better transit, decreased auto dependency, and decreased industrial pollutants.
*“Aforestation” due to global warming? Nice try.
"Absolutely, without question, this will happen. Areas of the globe currently too cold to sustain forests will become warm enough. "
***At the rate they're chopping down rain forest, that may not make any difference at all. And a rising tide may raise all boats, but it would also make a few major cities require scuba gear. Is that what you're proposing?
*Misinterpreting is not a lie. I do not lie. Not that I admit to misinterpreting you, but I do disagree with you.
"Bullshit. Misinterpreting is only not a lie if you keep it to yourself. As soon as you say it out loud, you’re telling a lie. Just because you may happen to believe it, doesn’t make it any less of a lie. But not to worry. Lies and liars are welcome on this website, even coddled. This site is a haven for disinformation. "
***Hey you're allowed to post here aren't you? Nuff said.
*You don't demonstrate it with that statement.
"What are you saying here, that living in mud huts connected by foot paths makes sense for humanity? Is that what you’re saying? "
***No that's not what I'm saying. Unless you live in what's left of the Amazonian jungle.
*I'm just saying it's not your job to police this site. It has it's own organic and you can't control what happens here any more than I can. That's as it should be.
"The people whose job it is to police this site, aren’t doing their job. My job, as well as yours, is to point that out. I’m doing my job. Why aren’t you? Do you *like* to see Indymedia used to promote racism, ecocide and rightwing politics? No? Then get up off your sorry butts and do something about it. "
***nessie, anyone with any reason expects that crap and ignores it. Keep at it then, but you're wasting your time, and it certainly doesn't encourage anyone to seriously want to head over to sf.indymedia.
*I for one, know we will not live in a world without cars. I'm a realist.
"Then why attack and alienate their drivers? It’s self defeating behavior. Politics is numbers. We need these people. Stop making them think radicals are a pack of malicious lunatics, out to ruin their lives. "
***Making a reasoned argument for alternatives is not attacking drivers. Some of them will think you're nuts no matter what you say (and they will go absolutely raving apeshit ballistic telling you so). A lot depends on how the subject is broached. I could say to you, why do you waste your time trying to promote your agenda of progressive politics? People will try to marginalize you as well. It doesn't mean you should stop putting out the message.
"They buy everything they need, food, shelter, clothing, medicine, everything. The biggest bite is housing. "
***why don't you cite -your- sources?
*But say we had alcohol powered vehicles. Can you demonstrate that there is no environmental impact whatsoever in the formulation of that kind of fuel? Even electric vehicles have a cost to the environment.
"Alcohol produces virtually no pollutants. With current technology, electric vehicles merely mover the source of the pollution from the tailpipe to the generating station. "
***It would be helpful if you could cite your sources for the clean production of alcohol powered fuel.
"As for impact, the “sprawl” as you call it, is a good thing. People gotta live somewhere. Cities are full. Most people don’t want to live in mud huts connected by footpaths. "
***People also have to stop excessive breeding, didn't you way that? And speaking of workers and living somewhere (some of whom find it challenging to find a place to live in this housing market), how do you feel about all the lower floor housing in SF that is removed to put in garages for autos?
*Are you saying I should be paying taxes for highway improvements if I don't even drive? 'Cause I do.
"Yes. for the same reason that people without children should help pay for education. We *all* benefit from the road system. The very food you eat, and virtually everything else you consume, is delivered by truck. Without roads, you’d starve. "
***But why should I pay as much as the people who use it most and actually degrade the asphalt requiring repairs? By your argument I suppose pedestrians and cyclists should pay a toll for using the bridges?
*Actually it's more like blaming the fox for getting into the hen house.
"What are you implying here, that foxes should turn vegan? Come on, you need forest products as much as we do. There is *nothing* wrong with cutting down trees. Cutting down trees is a good thing, as long as it is done sustainably. The problem is when entire forests are cut down to create cow pastures and pay off old junk bonds. That is not the fault of the roads. "
***And if it's not done sustainably? Do you think that Bush's buddies in the timber industry (in all their sparkling purity) can be relied on to log sustainably?
*They burn gasoline. And, they are not very stringent about emission standards.
"That is precisely the problem. Burn alcohol, and the problem goes away. "
***How much does the technology cost and how soon is it likely to be used in China for instance?
*And a rising tide may raise all boats, but it would also make a few major cities require scuba gear. Is that what you're proposing?
"I am not “proposing” it. I am merely pointing out that it’s happening. Some part of it maybe due to human activity, but humans or no humans, climate changes. This is a fact. Accept it. "
***Accept it? No. Change our part in it? Yes.
*Hey you're allowed to post here aren't you? Nuff said.
"Yeah. but I don’t lie. "
***You accuse others of lying who are not. That is a lie.
*nessie, anyone with any reason expects that crap and ignores it. Keep at it then, but you're wasting your time, and it certainly doesn't encourage anyone to seriously want to head over to sf.indymedia.
"This is simply untrue. When decent people stumble on this site via some search engine, and see, “KILL ALL THE JEWS” and “NIGGERS ARE LIKE ANIMALS,” they leave immediately. They never visit any Indymedia site again and, when asked about us, warn people away. This is hurting all Indymedia, and the Global Justice Movement in general. It is also traitorous collaboration with our enemies. It’s immoral. It’s counter productive. It needs to stop. "
***As I said before have at it. You are not indymedia's sacred guru, but if that's what ya gotta do...
*Making a reasoned argument for alternatives is not attacking drivers.
"That’s not all that’s happening here, though, and you know it. You, yourself, blame drivers for things over which they have no control. It’s offensive. It’s alienating. It impedes progress. "
***And you want to let them off the hook for things over which they do have control, but they simply haven't thought about.
*why do you waste your time trying to promote your agenda of progressive politics?
"It’s not a waste of time."
***nor is advocating for alternative transport options.
*It doesn't mean you should stop putting out the message.
"That depends on what your message is, and on what it is not. My message does not blame the victim. Your message is less than reasoned.
***What victim? I have nothing against people who need to drive, but the way you're trying to set up ALL drivers as victims is absurd. Drivers aren't victims. They've been accomodated for years to the neglect of everything else. Want to put in a bike lane? "Gee, I don't know, it would affect parking in my neighborhood!" Want to slow traffic, to make it safer for other road users? "That would cause congestion!"
"You don’t promote “alternatives.” You promote a specific alternative, one which is not universally practical, let alone universally desirable. There are places and situations where even SUVs make sense. There are places and circumstances where bicycles make no sense whatsoever. There is no single technological cure for humanity’s problems. People are too varied, so are their environments. We need to be flexible or else we shall fail"
***That is a lie. No, actually it's a misinterpretation. I would encourage a balanced use of all forms of transportation, I simply don't think we need to cater to automobiles as much as was done in the past. Many drivers stuck in traffic think the answer is to build more freeways or more lanes. Many drivers who can't find a parking space think the answer is to build more parking lots. If you build it they will come. More vehicles, more congestions, more pollution, more sprawl and less quality of life in the limited space we have.
interesting article on hybrids below.
***why don't you cite -your- sources?
*But say we had alcohol powered vehicles. Can you demonstrate that there is no environmental impact whatsoever in the formulation of that kind of fuel? Even electric vehicles have a cost to the environment.
"Alcohol produces virtually no pollutants. With current technology, electric vehicles merely mover the source of the pollution from the tailpipe to the generating station. "
***It would be helpful if you could cite your sources for the clean production of alcohol powered fuel.
"As for impact, the “sprawl” as you call it, is a good thing. People gotta live somewhere. Cities are full. Most people don’t want to live in mud huts connected by footpaths. "
***People also have to stop excessive breeding, didn't you way that? And speaking of workers and living somewhere (some of whom find it challenging to find a place to live in this housing market), how do you feel about all the lower floor housing in SF that is removed to put in garages for autos?
*Are you saying I should be paying taxes for highway improvements if I don't even drive? 'Cause I do.
"Yes. for the same reason that people without children should help pay for education. We *all* benefit from the road system. The very food you eat, and virtually everything else you consume, is delivered by truck. Without roads, you’d starve. "
***But why should I pay as much as the people who use it most and actually degrade the asphalt requiring repairs? By your argument I suppose pedestrians and cyclists should pay a toll for using the bridges?
*Actually it's more like blaming the fox for getting into the hen house.
"What are you implying here, that foxes should turn vegan? Come on, you need forest products as much as we do. There is *nothing* wrong with cutting down trees. Cutting down trees is a good thing, as long as it is done sustainably. The problem is when entire forests are cut down to create cow pastures and pay off old junk bonds. That is not the fault of the roads. "
***And if it's not done sustainably? Do you think that Bush's buddies in the timber industry (in all their sparkling purity) can be relied on to log sustainably?
*They burn gasoline. And, they are not very stringent about emission standards.
"That is precisely the problem. Burn alcohol, and the problem goes away. "
***How much does the technology cost and how soon is it likely to be used in China for instance?
*And a rising tide may raise all boats, but it would also make a few major cities require scuba gear. Is that what you're proposing?
"I am not “proposing” it. I am merely pointing out that it’s happening. Some part of it maybe due to human activity, but humans or no humans, climate changes. This is a fact. Accept it. "
***Accept it? No. Change our part in it? Yes.
*Hey you're allowed to post here aren't you? Nuff said.
"Yeah. but I don’t lie. "
***You accuse others of lying who are not. That is a lie.
*nessie, anyone with any reason expects that crap and ignores it. Keep at it then, but you're wasting your time, and it certainly doesn't encourage anyone to seriously want to head over to sf.indymedia.
"This is simply untrue. When decent people stumble on this site via some search engine, and see, “KILL ALL THE JEWS” and “NIGGERS ARE LIKE ANIMALS,” they leave immediately. They never visit any Indymedia site again and, when asked about us, warn people away. This is hurting all Indymedia, and the Global Justice Movement in general. It is also traitorous collaboration with our enemies. It’s immoral. It’s counter productive. It needs to stop. "
***As I said before have at it. You are not indymedia's sacred guru, but if that's what ya gotta do...
*Making a reasoned argument for alternatives is not attacking drivers.
"That’s not all that’s happening here, though, and you know it. You, yourself, blame drivers for things over which they have no control. It’s offensive. It’s alienating. It impedes progress. "
***And you want to let them off the hook for things over which they do have control, but they simply haven't thought about.
*why do you waste your time trying to promote your agenda of progressive politics?
"It’s not a waste of time."
***nor is advocating for alternative transport options.
*It doesn't mean you should stop putting out the message.
"That depends on what your message is, and on what it is not. My message does not blame the victim. Your message is less than reasoned.
***What victim? I have nothing against people who need to drive, but the way you're trying to set up ALL drivers as victims is absurd. Drivers aren't victims. They've been accomodated for years to the neglect of everything else. Want to put in a bike lane? "Gee, I don't know, it would affect parking in my neighborhood!" Want to slow traffic, to make it safer for other road users? "That would cause congestion!"
"You don’t promote “alternatives.” You promote a specific alternative, one which is not universally practical, let alone universally desirable. There are places and situations where even SUVs make sense. There are places and circumstances where bicycles make no sense whatsoever. There is no single technological cure for humanity’s problems. People are too varied, so are their environments. We need to be flexible or else we shall fail"
***That is a lie. No, actually it's a misinterpretation. I would encourage a balanced use of all forms of transportation, I simply don't think we need to cater to automobiles as much as was done in the past. Many drivers stuck in traffic think the answer is to build more freeways or more lanes. Many drivers who can't find a parking space think the answer is to build more parking lots. If you build it they will come. More vehicles, more congestions, more pollution, more sprawl and less quality of life in the limited space we have.
interesting article on hybrids below.
For more information:
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...
Try a little research. Couldn't hurt. Sprawl bad, smarth growth good.
For more information:
http://www.sprawlcity.org/
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1594/is_1_14/ai_96195502
E: China's car population is growing at 19 percent a year, and the Chinese are dramatically curtailing bicycle use in favor of the private automobile. China has evolved a significantly large middle class that can afford cars, and automakers from all over the world are opening plants there. Aren't we looking at an incredible increase in global warming gas unless the Chinese take a serious look at a hydrogen energy economy?
James S. Cannon: In the U.S. now, American automobiles release about 30 tons of carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) every second. In China, the figure is much lower, but the projections for the Chinese automobile population have it surpassing the U.S. numbers, 200 million, within 10 to 20 years. At the current pace, you have China quickly becoming a larger CO2 emitter than the U.S., which is now the world leader. It took the U.S. a century to get to where it is today, and China only started having private automobiles five or 10 years ago. This is a very large threat to any attempt to mitigate global warming effects around the world.
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/8_103100/downside_of_growth.htm
The industrial and energy sectors utilize some 80 percent of China's annual coal consumption, and produce much of China's air pollution. But coal used for cooking and heating in the residential sector and auto pollution account for increasingly significant amounts of pollution.
E: China's car population is growing at 19 percent a year, and the Chinese are dramatically curtailing bicycle use in favor of the private automobile. China has evolved a significantly large middle class that can afford cars, and automakers from all over the world are opening plants there. Aren't we looking at an incredible increase in global warming gas unless the Chinese take a serious look at a hydrogen energy economy?
James S. Cannon: In the U.S. now, American automobiles release about 30 tons of carbon dioxide (C[O.sub.2]) every second. In China, the figure is much lower, but the projections for the Chinese automobile population have it surpassing the U.S. numbers, 200 million, within 10 to 20 years. At the current pace, you have China quickly becoming a larger CO2 emitter than the U.S., which is now the world leader. It took the U.S. a century to get to where it is today, and China only started having private automobiles five or 10 years ago. This is a very large threat to any attempt to mitigate global warming effects around the world.
http://www.oycf.org/Perspectives/8_103100/downside_of_growth.htm
The industrial and energy sectors utilize some 80 percent of China's annual coal consumption, and produce much of China's air pollution. But coal used for cooking and heating in the residential sector and auto pollution account for increasingly significant amounts of pollution.
>You're living in a dream world if you don't think auto sales make up a huge portion of that purchase. As well as insurance, fuel, maintenance, fees, etc.
"talk’s cheap. Let’s see the numbers. Cite your sources."
Bureau of Labor statistics: The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) program consists of two surveys—the quarterly Interview survey and the Diary survey—that provide information on the buying habits of American consumers, including data on their expenditures, income, and consumer unit (families and single consumers) characteristics... In general, these include relatively large expenditures, such as those for real property, automobiles, and major appliances, or expenditures that occur on a regular basis, such as those for rent, utility payments, or insurance..."
Per the survey, housing consists of 32.7%, while transportation (consisting of vehicles/gas/motor oil/other transportation) consist of 19% of the total consumer expenditure. Here's the breakdown
Food: 13.2
Housing: 32.7
Apparel and services: 4.3
Transportation: 19.1
Health care: 5.8
Entertainment: 5.1
Personal insurance and pensions: 9.6
Other expenditures: 10.3
"talk’s cheap. Let’s see the numbers. Cite your sources."
Bureau of Labor statistics: The Consumer Expenditure Survey (CE) program consists of two surveys—the quarterly Interview survey and the Diary survey—that provide information on the buying habits of American consumers, including data on their expenditures, income, and consumer unit (families and single consumers) characteristics... In general, these include relatively large expenditures, such as those for real property, automobiles, and major appliances, or expenditures that occur on a regular basis, such as those for rent, utility payments, or insurance..."
Per the survey, housing consists of 32.7%, while transportation (consisting of vehicles/gas/motor oil/other transportation) consist of 19% of the total consumer expenditure. Here's the breakdown
Food: 13.2
Housing: 32.7
Apparel and services: 4.3
Transportation: 19.1
Health care: 5.8
Entertainment: 5.1
Personal insurance and pensions: 9.6
Other expenditures: 10.3
For more information:
http://www.bls.gov/cex/
US Cost of Automobiles/SUVs and Public Transport per Passenger Mile from 1960
Note: In 2001, gross spending on highways and roads (capital, operations, research, patrol, administration) exceeded highway user fees by $30 billion. This amount is not included in the US Department of Transportation table. Approximately $18 Billion in highway user revenues is diverted to other uses, including nearly $8 billion for transit.
At the same time, approximately 40 percent of capital and maintenance spending is attributable to large trucks, which are also not included in the US Department of Transportation table. Approximately $25 billion of capital and maintenance costs at the federal and state level are attributable to large trucks, leaving the automobile/SUV related excess of spending over highway user revenues at less than $5 billion. This increases the expenditures per passenger mile for automobiles and SUVs from $0.209 to $0.210...
Note: In 2001, gross spending on highways and roads (capital, operations, research, patrol, administration) exceeded highway user fees by $30 billion. This amount is not included in the US Department of Transportation table. Approximately $18 Billion in highway user revenues is diverted to other uses, including nearly $8 billion for transit.
At the same time, approximately 40 percent of capital and maintenance spending is attributable to large trucks, which are also not included in the US Department of Transportation table. Approximately $25 billion of capital and maintenance costs at the federal and state level are attributable to large trucks, leaving the automobile/SUV related excess of spending over highway user revenues at less than $5 billion. This increases the expenditures per passenger mile for automobiles and SUVs from $0.209 to $0.210...
For more information:
http://www.publicpurpose.com/ut-drvg1960.htm
"discuss ways they can cooperate to make the world a better place for all of us?"
Well, golly-gosh. That was a kinda touchy-feely answer. Come on. All I did was come up with a few little stats and you have no response. Yeah, heck, let's make it a beautiful world...
Well, golly-gosh. That was a kinda touchy-feely answer. Come on. All I did was come up with a few little stats and you have no response. Yeah, heck, let's make it a beautiful world...
<p>Not to get of subject, cause I know nessie is trying to unite car drivers with bicyclists. Very important.</p>
<p>But, there is a labor struggle going on in this town that we could use critical mass to help show solidarity and support and maybe perhaps cause enough of a disturbance for the hotels who have repeatedly chosen to deny their workers the possibility of new contracts.</p>
<p>Tomorrow night, Friday Oct 29th, lets have nike bloc breakaways that disrupt traffic around the hotels. Here's a map of all the locked out hotels: </p>
<img src=http://www.indybay.org/uploads/sf_hotel_map_labeled_i.png>
<p>But, there is a labor struggle going on in this town that we could use critical mass to help show solidarity and support and maybe perhaps cause enough of a disturbance for the hotels who have repeatedly chosen to deny their workers the possibility of new contracts.</p>
<p>Tomorrow night, Friday Oct 29th, lets have nike bloc breakaways that disrupt traffic around the hotels. Here's a map of all the locked out hotels: </p>
<img src=http://www.indybay.org/uploads/sf_hotel_map_labeled_i.png>
and make copies to give to the riders.
Your post is not off-topic in the least. It wouldn't be the first time we've ridden by demonstrations to support the workers. The Halloween ride is usually the most fun, and there's always a good turn-out. The ride is what you make it, if you want to do this, get at the front and lead it with enthusiasm and it will happen. See you there.
Your post is not off-topic in the least. It wouldn't be the first time we've ridden by demonstrations to support the workers. The Halloween ride is usually the most fun, and there's always a good turn-out. The ride is what you make it, if you want to do this, get at the front and lead it with enthusiasm and it will happen. See you there.
I'm used to people driving cars (kinda hard to miss 'em ya know?). Are you used to people taking the bus? walking? riding bikes?
You have no response except the usual jingoism. "Playing into the hands of the bosses" by making it easier for workers to get to work? I don't think so. Bicycle/pedestrian/transit advocates are the progressives of transportation and you want us to tone it down. Talk to our friends in NYC about that. We're part of the culture and you have no idea of how many ways we have revolutionized things already.
You have no response except the usual jingoism. "Playing into the hands of the bosses" by making it easier for workers to get to work? I don't think so. Bicycle/pedestrian/transit advocates are the progressives of transportation and you want us to tone it down. Talk to our friends in NYC about that. We're part of the culture and you have no idea of how many ways we have revolutionized things already.
it's about badmouthing -your- personal friends. well we won't bother to talk about the issues then. You can talk to yourself about the straw man of me "badmouthing" your "personal friends who drive cars".
As I already said (pay attention now), I'm not at war with drivers. But I am at war with the corporations and government drones who feed their addiction. I want these entities to give drivers other choices, whether for hybrid vehicles, improved transit, and more safety for bikes at peds. And yeah, there's a war on, and guess who is getting killed by your driving friends? Guess what the cost of that shit in your friends gas tank is?
Deal with it. The Revolution Will Not be Motorized.
As I already said (pay attention now), I'm not at war with drivers. But I am at war with the corporations and government drones who feed their addiction. I want these entities to give drivers other choices, whether for hybrid vehicles, improved transit, and more safety for bikes at peds. And yeah, there's a war on, and guess who is getting killed by your driving friends? Guess what the cost of that shit in your friends gas tank is?
Deal with it. The Revolution Will Not be Motorized.
>it's about badmouthing -your- personal friends. well we won't bother to talk about the issues then.
"That *is* the issue. It’s not just my personal friends. It’s virtually everybody’s personal friends. You are alienating the vast majority of the very people we need most to befriend. That’s bad politics. It’s rude and it’s counter productive."
***no nessie. I am not alienating them. I'm alienating you. You had no cogent response to any of the points I made when I countered your arguments. It was easier for you simply not to respond. This is not about other drivers or rudeness. This is about you and the way you respond in a discussion. And you are frequently rude online, so come off it.
>As I already said (pay attention now), I'm not at war with drivers.
"Then stop insulting them. They are not “addicted.” They are using the best means available to feed thier families. People have been doing this since before we were even human. It’s admirable behavior, stop putting it down. Stop slagging people who do it. You’re being obnoxious."
***stop your own lies. I know a lot of people who drive, many are my co-workers, family and friends. I also know a lot of able-bodied people who are addicted to the point where they will drive across the street to go from one store to another rather than walk across the road. It's not my problem if you're in denial about addicted drivers.
>I want these entities to give drivers other choices, whether for hybrid vehicles, improved transit, and more safety for bikes at peds.
"...The difference between you and me is that I’m smart enough to realize that bad mouthing workers who are trying to feed their families is not going to bring any of these things about."
***asking for alternatives is not badmouthing workers. Actually, you are badmouthing workers who don't happen to use a vehicle regularly. Many, many workers use transit and other means of transportation in the bay area. Perhaps you don't use it yourself much, and are not aware of this. In addition, many of them are employed as workers themselves in the transit system. While we're at it, you might want to check out how bikers support workers on another thread. Were you and your friends out supporting workers last night?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702096.php
"Nothing is going to happen that car drivers don’t approve of."
***Things have already happened that car drivers (and car companies and oil companies) don't approve of. Where I fault you is that you ignore the behavior of corporations and their desire to make money, often ripping off workers (see http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702180.php), and try to refocus your argument about workers and their supposed overwhelming need to drive. Your worker friends need to drive. Fine, but not all do. I assume you know how much it takes to maintain a car with all the costs of insurance/license/maintenance and fuel. If not check out the Consumer Expenditure Survey mentioned above. It costs workers billions, and part of those billions could be used for improved healthcare, housing, and education. Do you think workers don't need and deserve those things as well?
"This is a fact of political life. if you’re not willing to treat these people with respect, you can’t expect respect from them, let alone their cooperation in effecting positive changes."
***I do respect many of them and expect to be treated with equal respect. I do not agree with you that educating people about positive possibilities is showing them a lack of respect.
>And yeah, there's a war on, and guess who is getting killed by your driving friends?
"They are not just my friends. They are your friends, too."
***People that kill with impunity are not my friends. Drivers who behave responsibly are. Do you refuse to see that the first exists?
>Guess what the cost of that shit in your friends gas tank is?
"If you are too stupid to tell the difference between driving a car and fueling it with gasoline, I’m wasting my time talking to you. Motors are not the problem. Gasoline is the problem."
***thanks again for yet another ad hominem (the refuge of weak debate). The production of gasoline is not the only problem. Do you really think that oil companies will allow the control of this gravy train to be taken from them? They'll switch technologies and with the same modus operandi as before, put profit over safety and environmental protection. If everyone drove an SUV that got 75 mpg, we would still have the problem of congestion, and the space required to build the triple car garage that displaces workers from housing and increases sprawl. But wait a minute- I forgot! You don't believe in sprawl. Well, ignorance is no excuse for denial.
>The Revolution Will Not be Motorized.
"Bullshit. Motors drive progress. What we need are better motors and greener fuel."
***Well then, I drive progress, because I am the motor for my bicycle. I am the motor for getting myself a lot of places. Guess that's a little too green for your taste though. There's a lot of other things that drive progress, perhaps you could cite some proof of why you feel motors are so important. Maybe they drive the military industrial complex? oops.
"What you need is some common courtesy. How dare you demand that car drivers treat you with respect, when you’re not willing to treat them with respect?"
***How dare you ask how I dare? Everyone on the road deserves equal respect and courtesy. If their choices threaten the health and well being of others, they shouldn't be on the road. Speaking of common courtesy, you might try to demonstrate some.
You know, I'm really thankful we didn't have people like you involved when Critical Mass was being formed. We'd still be at square one and none of the dialogue of the last 12 years would have ever happened. It's clear you don't see any connection between progressive politics and progressive transportation policy. Your loss.
"That *is* the issue. It’s not just my personal friends. It’s virtually everybody’s personal friends. You are alienating the vast majority of the very people we need most to befriend. That’s bad politics. It’s rude and it’s counter productive."
***no nessie. I am not alienating them. I'm alienating you. You had no cogent response to any of the points I made when I countered your arguments. It was easier for you simply not to respond. This is not about other drivers or rudeness. This is about you and the way you respond in a discussion. And you are frequently rude online, so come off it.
>As I already said (pay attention now), I'm not at war with drivers.
"Then stop insulting them. They are not “addicted.” They are using the best means available to feed thier families. People have been doing this since before we were even human. It’s admirable behavior, stop putting it down. Stop slagging people who do it. You’re being obnoxious."
***stop your own lies. I know a lot of people who drive, many are my co-workers, family and friends. I also know a lot of able-bodied people who are addicted to the point where they will drive across the street to go from one store to another rather than walk across the road. It's not my problem if you're in denial about addicted drivers.
>I want these entities to give drivers other choices, whether for hybrid vehicles, improved transit, and more safety for bikes at peds.
"...The difference between you and me is that I’m smart enough to realize that bad mouthing workers who are trying to feed their families is not going to bring any of these things about."
***asking for alternatives is not badmouthing workers. Actually, you are badmouthing workers who don't happen to use a vehicle regularly. Many, many workers use transit and other means of transportation in the bay area. Perhaps you don't use it yourself much, and are not aware of this. In addition, many of them are employed as workers themselves in the transit system. While we're at it, you might want to check out how bikers support workers on another thread. Were you and your friends out supporting workers last night?
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702096.php
"Nothing is going to happen that car drivers don’t approve of."
***Things have already happened that car drivers (and car companies and oil companies) don't approve of. Where I fault you is that you ignore the behavior of corporations and their desire to make money, often ripping off workers (see http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702180.php), and try to refocus your argument about workers and their supposed overwhelming need to drive. Your worker friends need to drive. Fine, but not all do. I assume you know how much it takes to maintain a car with all the costs of insurance/license/maintenance and fuel. If not check out the Consumer Expenditure Survey mentioned above. It costs workers billions, and part of those billions could be used for improved healthcare, housing, and education. Do you think workers don't need and deserve those things as well?
"This is a fact of political life. if you’re not willing to treat these people with respect, you can’t expect respect from them, let alone their cooperation in effecting positive changes."
***I do respect many of them and expect to be treated with equal respect. I do not agree with you that educating people about positive possibilities is showing them a lack of respect.
>And yeah, there's a war on, and guess who is getting killed by your driving friends?
"They are not just my friends. They are your friends, too."
***People that kill with impunity are not my friends. Drivers who behave responsibly are. Do you refuse to see that the first exists?
>Guess what the cost of that shit in your friends gas tank is?
"If you are too stupid to tell the difference between driving a car and fueling it with gasoline, I’m wasting my time talking to you. Motors are not the problem. Gasoline is the problem."
***thanks again for yet another ad hominem (the refuge of weak debate). The production of gasoline is not the only problem. Do you really think that oil companies will allow the control of this gravy train to be taken from them? They'll switch technologies and with the same modus operandi as before, put profit over safety and environmental protection. If everyone drove an SUV that got 75 mpg, we would still have the problem of congestion, and the space required to build the triple car garage that displaces workers from housing and increases sprawl. But wait a minute- I forgot! You don't believe in sprawl. Well, ignorance is no excuse for denial.
>The Revolution Will Not be Motorized.
"Bullshit. Motors drive progress. What we need are better motors and greener fuel."
***Well then, I drive progress, because I am the motor for my bicycle. I am the motor for getting myself a lot of places. Guess that's a little too green for your taste though. There's a lot of other things that drive progress, perhaps you could cite some proof of why you feel motors are so important. Maybe they drive the military industrial complex? oops.
"What you need is some common courtesy. How dare you demand that car drivers treat you with respect, when you’re not willing to treat them with respect?"
***How dare you ask how I dare? Everyone on the road deserves equal respect and courtesy. If their choices threaten the health and well being of others, they shouldn't be on the road. Speaking of common courtesy, you might try to demonstrate some.
You know, I'm really thankful we didn't have people like you involved when Critical Mass was being formed. We'd still be at square one and none of the dialogue of the last 12 years would have ever happened. It's clear you don't see any connection between progressive politics and progressive transportation policy. Your loss.
I was going to call this bad reasoning part 2, but somewhere in there amongst all the insults, misinterpretations/lies, you showed some improvement, hence the title.
>And you are frequently rude online, so come off it.
I’m rude to individuals, and only those who deserve it. ...Insulting people we need is more than just stupid. It’s bad politics....We need them to go away and stop making Indymedia look bad. ... Politics is numbers. Count heads.
***Repeating yourself, really I could just scroll up and get the same point. And stop lying, I'm not insulting people, you are deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying.
>Actually, you are badmouthing workers who don't happen to use a vehicle regularly.
"No I’m not. That’s patently absurd. I’m bad mouthing you, personally, and the people like you, whose bad politics are hurting all workers, even the ones on bicycles. You are not helping bicyclists, or bicycling, and you are certainly not promoting a green sustainable transportation policy, by alienating the very people you need most to win over."
***You don't really know much about transportation policy or you might have responded to some of the facts and points made above. Talk to me when you've done your homework, and stop lying about what I'm actually saying.
"That’s lame. You’re lame. Get over it. Grow up, count heads, realize that the world does not revolve around people like you, and develop the social skills you need to fit into yourselves and your cause into an effective mass movement that has the numbers to actually accomplish something."
***Social skills and a mass movement like yours? No thanks! The same words back at you.
"Only mass action can change the world. There are not enough people on bicycles to change anything except, perhaps, the attitudes of the people they interact with. So once a month a couple thousand people get on their bikes and ride around together. So what? Every single day a couple of million people get in their cars and ride around together. Politics is numbers. Count heads."
***Say something new. And if politics is numbers, you can just forget about your own little spot of activism. How many you got? You're not changing anything. Look around you. No wait, first go to middle America, and then look around you.
"You need these people. We need these people. In fact, the overwhelming majority of us *are* these people. Stop insulting us. Stop insulting our friends. There are plenty of people who do need insulted. Go insult some of them."
***Of course we need these people. No one is insulting them. Except that perhaps you are insulting their intelligence.
>Many, many workers use transit and other means of transportation in the bay area.
"That’s a separate issue. Let’s stay focused here. We’re not talking about demographics here. We’re talking about the politics of transportation activism. Note that I said, “transportation activism.” Bicycle activism is *not* transportation activism. Bicycle activism is *part* of transportation activism. It’s not the only part, and it’s certainly not the most important part. It has a part to play. You have a part to play. But it’s only a part. It’s not the whole thing."
***It's not a separate issue. You brought workers into it, and they are indeed part of the issue. Workers need affordable means to get to work. These means include (but are not exclusive to) automobiles. Automobiles are only a part of the whole.
>you ignore the behavior of corporations and their desire to make money, often ripping off workers
I most certainly do not. Au contrair, I talk about it a lot. And i do more than talk. I have spent most of my life actively trying to destroy corporations. But that’s also a separate issue. Here, in this thread, I am addressing a grave strategic political error that some bicycle activists make by blaming the victims of the system for their own oppression, and insulting them to their faces about it. It’s bad politics. It hurts bicycle activism. It hurts other bicyclists. It hurts other activists. It hurts activism in general . It hurts Indymedia.
***One could say the same of any progressive political agenda. How many potential supporters do you alienate when you take a stand that is not in the mainstream? Does that mean you are rude for making it or hurting the cause? No it needs to be said and you have a right and a responsibility to say it.
"When people log on here and read about how they are “addicted” because they like to drive, it alienates almost all of them. They conclude that you, and anyone who supports you, are all flaming assholes who have nothing to say that is worth listening to. Convincing fellow workers that you and your friends are assholes is bad politics.
***Oh you mean like this fellow worker? He seems to like us:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702096_comment.php#1702111
"It doesn’t make anything better. It makes things worse. If you want to talk about corporations, start a thread about corporations. This thread is about bicycle activism, which I see as not always taking the best course. I don’t own a bicycle *or* a car, so I can see stuff about the issue that you can’t, and they can’t either. I have a sense of perspective that is impossible for someone who is actually involved. If for no other reason than that, you should listen to what I have to say.
***and you get around how? (I missed that). Yes, this thread is about bicycle activism. If you don't think bicycle activism is affected by what corporations do in regard to transportation policy, you are misinformed to say the least. And by the way, you didn't start this thread, so quit trying to edit it.
"I’m perfectly willing to listen to you try to you explain why being rude to car drivers is *not* bad politics. But you aren’t doing that. You’re changing the subject. Come on, defend being rude to car drivers. I want to hear it. That’s the issue here. Address that. Tell us why being rude to car drivers is a good thing. Be specific. Cite examples."
***Quit putting words in my mouth. Those are lies. Or at least that's what you say when you accuse others of puting words in your mouth. PROPOSING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES IS NOT BEING RUDE TO CAR DRIVERS. Anyway as previously noted, there is no point in citing examples of anything to you since you disregard the response.
>I do not agree with you that educating people about positive possibilities is showing them a lack of respect.
"That depends how you do it. Do it politely, and it’s constructive. But insulting car drivers is not constructive. These people are fellow workers. The *only* thing that is ever going to make this world a better place for us to live in is workers uniting to do it. Insulting fellow workers is bad politics precisely because it is divisive."
***Don't lecture on being polite unless you do the same, and stop repeating the lie about insulting workers. Repetition doesn't equal the truth.
>People that kill with impunity are not my friends. Drivers who behave responsibly are. Do you refuse to see that the first exists?
"I refuse to consider the relationship between bicyclists in general and car drives in general to be a war. You do. That’s bad politics. War between workers is exactly what the bosses want from life. It’s the mortar that holds their privilege and power together."
***You repeatedly say that "we're at war". What do YOU mean when you say that. Be specific.
"But oil consumption isn’t the only resource burden cars produce. They also eat up steel, rubber, copper, etc. Then we also need places to park them, roads on which they can be driven, etc. There are finite limits to how many cars this planet can support. It is grossly unfair to expect most people to stand around watching, while a privileged elite drive and they don’t. Cars should be available to anyone who wants them. But on a planet with six, and soon enough twenty, billion people, this is simply not practical. So we need to reduce our population to a sustainable level. Six billion people cannot all live like Americans. It is physically impossible. But with prudent resource management and only slightly more advanced technology than we have today, a billion could could. A billion people is plenty for a planet this size. Half a billion would live better still.
***Thoughtful comments. However, I don't agree that cars should be available to anyone that wants them (imagine all the 12 year olds driving mini-coopers). Or the waste of environmental resources and pollution involved in creating that many cars. If the transit was good enough, the "privileged elite" would be the ones who got to use it, and they'd have more disposable income as well.
"We need to start reducing our population immediately. There are too damn many people already.
Sprawl, as you call it, is not the result of bad planning. It’s the result of too many people. There is simply not enough room for us all in the city. That’s why we sprawl. We need to stop over breeding. Already our living space encroaches on too much wilderness and agricultural land. We need to stop encroaching and start restoring. Switching over to bicycles wont do the trick. We need to stabilize our population at a sustainable level. That will solve the problem. Nothing else will, except perhaps mass migration to other planets."
***Sprawl is indeed partly to do with bad planning, there are other contributing factors to be sure.
"This would not only address transportation issues, bit a whole host of other issues as well. Most of what’s wrong with life on this planet derives directly from overpopulation. Let’s get the root of our problems and stop wasting time on the branches. "
***This needs another thread. to discuss fully.
>You don't believe in sprawl.
I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. It makes you look like an asshole.
***"You said "the “sprawl” as you call it, is a good thing." Which indicated to me that either you don't know what it is, or you don't believe in it. Making a comment in that manner makes you sound like an asshole, whatever you look like.
>perhaps you could cite some proof of why you feel motors are so important.
"Well, for one thing, a motor created the electricity on which our computers are running. Other motors created the computers themselves. Yet other motors delivered. Without motors, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. At best, we’d be reading handwritten letters by candle light. Probably, we’d never even have met. Do you want to go back to living like that? I certainly don’t. Neither do most people. Motors harvested, processed and delivered the food we eat."
***You didn't mention the military industrial complex. I'm so disappointed.
"At any given time, this city has about a three day supply of food on hand. Without motors, we’d starve, and quickly, too."
***Bullshit. Fearmonger. Try to learn to be at least a little self-reliant, it's good for the character.
"Motors purified the water we drink, manufactured the medicines that keep us alive, built the houses we live in, the bridges we cross, and the clothes that we wear. Without motors, we’d be living like people lived hundreds of years ago. It was not a pleasant way to live, but it worked, sort of, for a while. because there weren’t six billion of us then. Six billion people cannot even stay alive on this planet without motors. It’s not physically possible. There isn’t enough room."
***Note to self: must make more room for motors so that we can displace workers... We're talking about transportation alternatives. Not all the good things that motors can do, -if- used in the right way. Let's get back to the subject.
>It's clear you don't see any connection between progressive politics and progressive transportation policy.
"I’m not even talking about transportation policy. I’m talking about how little you understand of how the world works, and how it makes you practice bad politics. It actively impedes your ability to create a progressive transportation policy."
***that's what this thread is about, If you want to talk about your opinion of what is or isn't bad politics, start your own thread.
"You’re hurting your own cause, as well as others, by bad mouthing car drivers in public. Stop doing it. It doesn’t matter what you say in your kitchen. It doesn’t matter what you think in your head. It does matter how you treat other people. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because that determines how they treat you. "
***PROPOSING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES IS NOT BADMOUTHING CAR DRIVERS.
"We will never have a sane transpiration policy unless and until the majority of people demand it. Bicycles are a part of a sane transportation policy, but they are only a part. If you weren’t so damn self centered, you’d realize this. Demanding a transportation policy that centers on your own personal interests is selfish."
***Stop focusing on bicycles. We're talking about transportation alternatives. Not everyone can ride a bicycle- hell I can't even ride a bicycle all the time. Stop putting words in my mouth.
"Insulting fellow workers because their personal interests are not exactly the same as yours, is bad politics. Bad. Bad, bad, bad. Shame on you. Go hang your head."
***You go hang yours, until you can stop spouting lies about your fellow workers.
"Cars and bicycles can share the road. Cars and bicycles must share the road. There is not sane alternative. Ergo, bicycle riders and care drivers must get along."
***You finally said something that makes sense.
"Insulting each other does not promote this. Dialog promotes this. Dialog with car drivers, don’t insult them. Then maybe we can make some progress towards a sustainable transportation system that serves everybody’s needs."
***That I agree with- and I'm all for dialogue. But making points in the dialogue doesn't call for defensive accusations and being told one is insulting the other side. Don't assume because I want to talk about alternatives, or because I bike and walk and use transit, that I am out to insult drivers.
>And you are frequently rude online, so come off it.
I’m rude to individuals, and only those who deserve it. ...Insulting people we need is more than just stupid. It’s bad politics....We need them to go away and stop making Indymedia look bad. ... Politics is numbers. Count heads.
***Repeating yourself, really I could just scroll up and get the same point. And stop lying, I'm not insulting people, you are deliberately misinterpreting what I'm saying.
>Actually, you are badmouthing workers who don't happen to use a vehicle regularly.
"No I’m not. That’s patently absurd. I’m bad mouthing you, personally, and the people like you, whose bad politics are hurting all workers, even the ones on bicycles. You are not helping bicyclists, or bicycling, and you are certainly not promoting a green sustainable transportation policy, by alienating the very people you need most to win over."
***You don't really know much about transportation policy or you might have responded to some of the facts and points made above. Talk to me when you've done your homework, and stop lying about what I'm actually saying.
"That’s lame. You’re lame. Get over it. Grow up, count heads, realize that the world does not revolve around people like you, and develop the social skills you need to fit into yourselves and your cause into an effective mass movement that has the numbers to actually accomplish something."
***Social skills and a mass movement like yours? No thanks! The same words back at you.
"Only mass action can change the world. There are not enough people on bicycles to change anything except, perhaps, the attitudes of the people they interact with. So once a month a couple thousand people get on their bikes and ride around together. So what? Every single day a couple of million people get in their cars and ride around together. Politics is numbers. Count heads."
***Say something new. And if politics is numbers, you can just forget about your own little spot of activism. How many you got? You're not changing anything. Look around you. No wait, first go to middle America, and then look around you.
"You need these people. We need these people. In fact, the overwhelming majority of us *are* these people. Stop insulting us. Stop insulting our friends. There are plenty of people who do need insulted. Go insult some of them."
***Of course we need these people. No one is insulting them. Except that perhaps you are insulting their intelligence.
>Many, many workers use transit and other means of transportation in the bay area.
"That’s a separate issue. Let’s stay focused here. We’re not talking about demographics here. We’re talking about the politics of transportation activism. Note that I said, “transportation activism.” Bicycle activism is *not* transportation activism. Bicycle activism is *part* of transportation activism. It’s not the only part, and it’s certainly not the most important part. It has a part to play. You have a part to play. But it’s only a part. It’s not the whole thing."
***It's not a separate issue. You brought workers into it, and they are indeed part of the issue. Workers need affordable means to get to work. These means include (but are not exclusive to) automobiles. Automobiles are only a part of the whole.
>you ignore the behavior of corporations and their desire to make money, often ripping off workers
I most certainly do not. Au contrair, I talk about it a lot. And i do more than talk. I have spent most of my life actively trying to destroy corporations. But that’s also a separate issue. Here, in this thread, I am addressing a grave strategic political error that some bicycle activists make by blaming the victims of the system for their own oppression, and insulting them to their faces about it. It’s bad politics. It hurts bicycle activism. It hurts other bicyclists. It hurts other activists. It hurts activism in general . It hurts Indymedia.
***One could say the same of any progressive political agenda. How many potential supporters do you alienate when you take a stand that is not in the mainstream? Does that mean you are rude for making it or hurting the cause? No it needs to be said and you have a right and a responsibility to say it.
"When people log on here and read about how they are “addicted” because they like to drive, it alienates almost all of them. They conclude that you, and anyone who supports you, are all flaming assholes who have nothing to say that is worth listening to. Convincing fellow workers that you and your friends are assholes is bad politics.
***Oh you mean like this fellow worker? He seems to like us:
http://www.indybay.org/news/2004/10/1702096_comment.php#1702111
"It doesn’t make anything better. It makes things worse. If you want to talk about corporations, start a thread about corporations. This thread is about bicycle activism, which I see as not always taking the best course. I don’t own a bicycle *or* a car, so I can see stuff about the issue that you can’t, and they can’t either. I have a sense of perspective that is impossible for someone who is actually involved. If for no other reason than that, you should listen to what I have to say.
***and you get around how? (I missed that). Yes, this thread is about bicycle activism. If you don't think bicycle activism is affected by what corporations do in regard to transportation policy, you are misinformed to say the least. And by the way, you didn't start this thread, so quit trying to edit it.
"I’m perfectly willing to listen to you try to you explain why being rude to car drivers is *not* bad politics. But you aren’t doing that. You’re changing the subject. Come on, defend being rude to car drivers. I want to hear it. That’s the issue here. Address that. Tell us why being rude to car drivers is a good thing. Be specific. Cite examples."
***Quit putting words in my mouth. Those are lies. Or at least that's what you say when you accuse others of puting words in your mouth. PROPOSING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES IS NOT BEING RUDE TO CAR DRIVERS. Anyway as previously noted, there is no point in citing examples of anything to you since you disregard the response.
>I do not agree with you that educating people about positive possibilities is showing them a lack of respect.
"That depends how you do it. Do it politely, and it’s constructive. But insulting car drivers is not constructive. These people are fellow workers. The *only* thing that is ever going to make this world a better place for us to live in is workers uniting to do it. Insulting fellow workers is bad politics precisely because it is divisive."
***Don't lecture on being polite unless you do the same, and stop repeating the lie about insulting workers. Repetition doesn't equal the truth.
>People that kill with impunity are not my friends. Drivers who behave responsibly are. Do you refuse to see that the first exists?
"I refuse to consider the relationship between bicyclists in general and car drives in general to be a war. You do. That’s bad politics. War between workers is exactly what the bosses want from life. It’s the mortar that holds their privilege and power together."
***You repeatedly say that "we're at war". What do YOU mean when you say that. Be specific.
"But oil consumption isn’t the only resource burden cars produce. They also eat up steel, rubber, copper, etc. Then we also need places to park them, roads on which they can be driven, etc. There are finite limits to how many cars this planet can support. It is grossly unfair to expect most people to stand around watching, while a privileged elite drive and they don’t. Cars should be available to anyone who wants them. But on a planet with six, and soon enough twenty, billion people, this is simply not practical. So we need to reduce our population to a sustainable level. Six billion people cannot all live like Americans. It is physically impossible. But with prudent resource management and only slightly more advanced technology than we have today, a billion could could. A billion people is plenty for a planet this size. Half a billion would live better still.
***Thoughtful comments. However, I don't agree that cars should be available to anyone that wants them (imagine all the 12 year olds driving mini-coopers). Or the waste of environmental resources and pollution involved in creating that many cars. If the transit was good enough, the "privileged elite" would be the ones who got to use it, and they'd have more disposable income as well.
"We need to start reducing our population immediately. There are too damn many people already.
Sprawl, as you call it, is not the result of bad planning. It’s the result of too many people. There is simply not enough room for us all in the city. That’s why we sprawl. We need to stop over breeding. Already our living space encroaches on too much wilderness and agricultural land. We need to stop encroaching and start restoring. Switching over to bicycles wont do the trick. We need to stabilize our population at a sustainable level. That will solve the problem. Nothing else will, except perhaps mass migration to other planets."
***Sprawl is indeed partly to do with bad planning, there are other contributing factors to be sure.
"This would not only address transportation issues, bit a whole host of other issues as well. Most of what’s wrong with life on this planet derives directly from overpopulation. Let’s get the root of our problems and stop wasting time on the branches. "
***This needs another thread. to discuss fully.
>You don't believe in sprawl.
I never said that. Stop putting words in my mouth. It makes you look like an asshole.
***"You said "the “sprawl” as you call it, is a good thing." Which indicated to me that either you don't know what it is, or you don't believe in it. Making a comment in that manner makes you sound like an asshole, whatever you look like.
>perhaps you could cite some proof of why you feel motors are so important.
"Well, for one thing, a motor created the electricity on which our computers are running. Other motors created the computers themselves. Yet other motors delivered. Without motors, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. At best, we’d be reading handwritten letters by candle light. Probably, we’d never even have met. Do you want to go back to living like that? I certainly don’t. Neither do most people. Motors harvested, processed and delivered the food we eat."
***You didn't mention the military industrial complex. I'm so disappointed.
"At any given time, this city has about a three day supply of food on hand. Without motors, we’d starve, and quickly, too."
***Bullshit. Fearmonger. Try to learn to be at least a little self-reliant, it's good for the character.
"Motors purified the water we drink, manufactured the medicines that keep us alive, built the houses we live in, the bridges we cross, and the clothes that we wear. Without motors, we’d be living like people lived hundreds of years ago. It was not a pleasant way to live, but it worked, sort of, for a while. because there weren’t six billion of us then. Six billion people cannot even stay alive on this planet without motors. It’s not physically possible. There isn’t enough room."
***Note to self: must make more room for motors so that we can displace workers... We're talking about transportation alternatives. Not all the good things that motors can do, -if- used in the right way. Let's get back to the subject.
>It's clear you don't see any connection between progressive politics and progressive transportation policy.
"I’m not even talking about transportation policy. I’m talking about how little you understand of how the world works, and how it makes you practice bad politics. It actively impedes your ability to create a progressive transportation policy."
***that's what this thread is about, If you want to talk about your opinion of what is or isn't bad politics, start your own thread.
"You’re hurting your own cause, as well as others, by bad mouthing car drivers in public. Stop doing it. It doesn’t matter what you say in your kitchen. It doesn’t matter what you think in your head. It does matter how you treat other people. This is true for a number of reasons, not the least of which is because that determines how they treat you. "
***PROPOSING TRANSPORTATION ALTERNATIVES IS NOT BADMOUTHING CAR DRIVERS.
"We will never have a sane transpiration policy unless and until the majority of people demand it. Bicycles are a part of a sane transportation policy, but they are only a part. If you weren’t so damn self centered, you’d realize this. Demanding a transportation policy that centers on your own personal interests is selfish."
***Stop focusing on bicycles. We're talking about transportation alternatives. Not everyone can ride a bicycle- hell I can't even ride a bicycle all the time. Stop putting words in my mouth.
"Insulting fellow workers because their personal interests are not exactly the same as yours, is bad politics. Bad. Bad, bad, bad. Shame on you. Go hang your head."
***You go hang yours, until you can stop spouting lies about your fellow workers.
"Cars and bicycles can share the road. Cars and bicycles must share the road. There is not sane alternative. Ergo, bicycle riders and care drivers must get along."
***You finally said something that makes sense.
"Insulting each other does not promote this. Dialog promotes this. Dialog with car drivers, don’t insult them. Then maybe we can make some progress towards a sustainable transportation system that serves everybody’s needs."
***That I agree with- and I'm all for dialogue. But making points in the dialogue doesn't call for defensive accusations and being told one is insulting the other side. Don't assume because I want to talk about alternatives, or because I bike and walk and use transit, that I am out to insult drivers.
"I don't agree that cars should be available to anyone that wants them"
i don't agree you should have any say over what anyone else rides.
i don't agree you should have any say over what anyone else rides.
it's the context, stupid.
i'm not trying to talk people out of their cars.
at the rate you're going, you never will.
at the rate you're going, you never will.
pffft.
.
.
your inability to reason in a sustained manner says more about the shoddy, ill-considered nature of your agenda than any number of critiques could.
get back to us when you grow up, m'kay?
get back to us when you grow up, m'kay?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.......
such a stinging critique. so spectacularly alienating.
speaking of which, you might get to building those bridges with the national alliance. they are very exciting, i hear.
don't know where to write? never fear, help is close at hand.
and i hear it's just a lot of fun to bike in idaho!! toodles.
speaking of which, you might get to building those bridges with the national alliance. they are very exciting, i hear.
don't know where to write? never fear, help is close at hand.
and i hear it's just a lot of fun to bike in idaho!! toodles.
don't....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...
As long as the corporations who provide those things are highly paid and don't lose their existing franchise before they can transfer their profit making structure. I'm sure they'll do that out of the sheer goodness of their hearts.
By the way, the effect of cars on the environment is not only through emissions. Wonder about that.
By the way, the effect of cars on the environment is not only through emissions. Wonder about that.
waiting for that critical mass to nevada, to turn the red states pedal-power blue.
clue time: it's not working. try something different. try something that involves someone besides yourself.
clue time: it's not working. try something different. try something that involves someone besides yourself.
zzzzzz...
.
.
more sleep!
righto!! all over it sarge....
righto!! all over it sarge....
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$75.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network