Federal money was recently awarded to California, Illinois, and Florida to assist them in their development of high speed rail projects. Many championed the awards as a significant step towards helping the environment, ending traffic congestion, and reducing pollution. It is true that rail systems can help achieve those goals. But only if they are used.
Many in America are infatuated with Europe. Many have been to Europe. They likely have fond memories of traveling from city to city aboard a trains, and once there, taking buses or hiking to see the sights. I know I do. Many in the U.S. seek to recreate that experience here in the U.S. They fancy the idea of ambling down to the train station (never more than a comfortable distance away), where they could board the next train (rarely more than a 30 minute wait) to wherever it is they want to go. After a modest and comfortable trip, they are dropped off in the center of town where many of the attractions they seek are often a stroll away. Reading of the newer, high speed trains in Europe where a train can be boarded in Paris and exited in Rome in a day or less only increases their ardor for trains. Even the slower, local trains in Europe provide the convenience of travelling from town to town while providing scenic pleasures without the burden of acquiring or owning a motor vehicle. The idea of someday strolling down to the train station in Chicago and catching the next train to Milwaukee or Pittsburgh some afternoon might be an attractive one. But it is also an unrealistic one.
The U.S. is a very large country. Towns and cities are much farther apart in the U.S. than they are in Europe. It is 694 miles from Rome to Paris. It is 1,373 miles from Houston to New York City. 1,661 miles from Houston to L.A. There are many towns and mid size cities in between that one simply cannot take a train to, let alone a high speed train. Even when a train can be taken, the problematic nature of exiting the train at the town of one's choice would have to be considered along with the inconvenience and the time it would take to get about after exiting the train. Riding buses around London can be part of the adventure. Riding buses in Cleveland is another matter.
Additionally, not everyone traveling to a city is going downtown. Unlike cities in Europe, many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas are incredibly vast, covering hundreds of square miles. The city of Houston, TX covers 600 square miles. While European cities can be large, usually most activity and sites within those cities are concentrated within tight geographic locations. Many U.S. cities like Houston and Dallas have no downtown. They spread seemingly endlessly in every direction, further complicating the issue of mass transit. Being dropped off by train in Houston can still leave one 50 miles or more from their destination. An effective rail system in the U.S. would require much more than simply linking cities. There would have to be enough convenient mass transit system within the city to make it attractive and effective. We are a long way from when the train station was just down the street from the saloon.
Not every U.S. city is like New York or Washington, D.C. Taking a train to Los Angeles may sound like a good idea if one is not in a hurry. But once one gets there and contemplates its mass transit options, the preferred choice to get around will be by car; which, of course, will do nothing to ease traffic or reduce pollution. The low density and sprawl of cities like Los Angeles and Houston makes creating efficient public transportation within them prohibitively expensive.
An effective rail transit system in the U.S. would have to be vast beyond the imaginations of those enamoured with it. A rail system linking cities would have to be accompanied by an efficient mass transit within those cities. High speed trains linking Chicago to New York might be useful because those cities have effective local mass transportation. In cities without such well developed systems, rental cars, cabs, and, in some cases, buses would have to be relied upon to get about once there, all of which only add to congestion and pollution. In any event, trains would have only a modest effect on traffic between many cities. A good train system might reduce traffic between New York and Philadelphia, but likely have little effect on traffic between New York and Chicago. Few people drive from New York to Chicago.
In most cities, relying upon public transportation once there is an option to be avoided if at all possible. Being dropped off at a train station in Houston or Los Angeles would be little better than useless. I dare one to find a person traveling to LA or Houston that intends to rely upon public transportation after they arrive. When it comes down to it, travelling is about convenience. Mass transit is not simply about traffic congestion or reducing pollution. An inconvenient mass transportation system is an all but useless mass transportation system. An effective and convenient mass transportation system in a city like Houston or Los Angeles is possible, but it would take a very long time to build, and it would cost a fortune.
Cities could choose to buy more buses and put up billboards urging people to use them for all the good that would do. If nothing else, it would be cheaper than trying to build a mass transit system. But buses do little to flatter the ego of cities preening themselves to be the next Manhattan.
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
News from Afghanistan
It was reported today that an Afghan tribe signed a pact to "burn down the houses" of those found to have sheltered insurgents. Nothing was said about how the tribe would determine who has sheltered insurgents and who hasn't. The U.S. rewarded the determination and resolve of the tribe and pledged $1.2 million in aid and job programs. It was not said that any houses would actually have to be burned down to ensure the aid. The pledge was enough.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
It is unlikely that the village possesses a sophisticated police force, let alone qualified investigators. Most likely, authorities will have to rely upon accusation, rumor, and circumstantial evidence to determine who is supporting the insurgents and who isn't. It is also unlikely the U.S. is overly concerned about this. No doubt, both the U.S. and the local authorities are relying upon the threat of burning houses down to deter any from considering aiding the insurgency. Maybe some houses will be burned just to demonstrate the resolve of the local police force and demonstrate to U.S. forces that the $1.2 million was money well spent. Little thought apparently was given to the repercussions of burning houses down because a member of the household was accused, or perhaps just suspected of aiding the Taliban. The site of police setting fire to homes and the smoking ruins left behind are sure earn the villagers' loyalty and set them against the Taliban. Or maybe not.
Of course the tribe may have simply pledged to burn houses. $1.2 million is a lot of money in Afghanistan. In either case, both the U.S. and the villagers win. The village gets $1.2 million, and the U.S. gets the victory of prying one more village from the Taliban. Or maybe not.
In related news, it was also reported that the Taliban had refused an offer to lay down their arms in exchange for jobs and financial assistance from the government. The offer was made by the Afghan government at the behest of the U.S. The Taliban rejected the offer saying they are not "fighting for money, property, and position", but for Islam. U.S. special representative to Afghanistan, Richard Holbrooke expressed skepticism at the reason given by the Taliban. His skepticism is based on interviews with prisoners and returnees indicating 70% of those fighting Afghan and U.S. forces are not fighting for Islam or against U.S. forces: an unsurprising thing for men captured by U.S. or government forces to say. It is also based in part on the U.S.'s inability to understand religion as something worth fighting about.
It might be the case the the Taliban is paying villagers to fight U.S. forces. If this is the case, times must indeed be rough in Afghanistan if young men are turning to fighting against drones, gunships, and special forces to make a living.
It would be a grave error for the U.S. to assume that the Taliban is not fighting for Islam or to end what they see as U.S. occupation. The inability of the U.S. to see beyond economic and political motives for conflict is one that cannot but harm our foreign policy objectives. Not everyone is as indifferent to religion as the U.S. Neither is everyone as motivated by the desire for comfort and wealth or easily placated by holding elections. There are many in the world that hold principles and beliefs that they are willing to fight for; even die for, that have nothing to do with political representation, wealth, or physical comfort. Until we take that into account, we will continue to fumble our way about, dropping bombs, offering bribes, imposing elections, and propping up sympathetic governments.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
No Trials for the Guilty
In an editorial in this morning's Dallas Morning News, radio talk show host Mark Davis takes President Obama to task for proposing that those detained in Guantanamo and elsewhere as terrorists be allowed to challenge their detention in court before a judge. He sneers at the prospect of terrorists being "paraded into federal court...to argue for their innocence." Davis goes on to criticize Obama as exhibiting a "softness [that] rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Clearly, Davis believes that everyone held in Guantanamo is guilty. Why else would they be detained? Davis, and many like him, are satisfied with the government's claim that everyone detained in Guantanamo is guilty. To allow those detained the opportunity to deny their guilt and challenge their detention in court would be the very height of weakness and timidity. To hold hearings to assess the evidence and determine the validity of the charges levied against the detainees - and they are just that; detainees - would be more than a waste of time, it would be perilous because it is claimed the evidence against them is too sensitive to be revealed in court.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Years ago, there was a Star Trek episode where the crew of the Enterprise were brought to trial before an omnipotent being. Convening the court, the judge said, "bring the guilty forward." The captain of the Enterprise protested at being identified as "guilty" even before the trial had commenced. The judge dismissed the captain's protest, saying of course they were guilty. "It wouldn't be fair to put the innocent on trial."
The Bush administration adopted the same policy. Obama has continued that policy. Those detained by the U.S. are denied due process and trials because they are guilty. According to Davis, even reading detainees their Miranda rights and allowing them to argue for their innocence is a "softness that rises to the level of malignant intentional blindness." Of course everyone apprehended and detained is guilty. Why else would they have been apprehended and detained? To accord them the fundamental right to challenge their detention and the evidence against them would be feckless.
Many are willing to take the government's word that those detained are guilty. The government's claim that there is evidence to justify their detention is enough to assure the public that the government knows what it is doing, even if that evidence is never revealed. The government says it exists, therefore it must exist. And if those men are convicted in a closed trial, or just plain imprisoned as "terrorists", the public will be satisfied that justice has been done, even if they never learn who it was that was convicted, what the evidence against them was, or even what exactly they were convicted of. The public will be satisfied that whoever it was that was convicted was guilty. They had to be right? Why else would they have been detained?
Davis may believe that everyone in custody is guilty. We should not.
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
This Year Will Be Different
It is expected that in his upcoming State of the Union Address, President Obama will resolve to quit his spending, or at least get it under control. After a year of excess and extravagant government spending, Obama will vow to sober up and take steps to address the exploding federal deficit. Obama's resolution was forced because his sweetheart, the public, is threatening to leave him if he doesn't. He will promise to quit spending in October, right after he presents his budget proposal. There are still a few things he needs to buy first. After things calm down in the fall, he promises, he will get his spending under control. There is to much stress at work to quit right now. It is hoped that Obama's resolution to cut down will assuage a public increasingly concerned with his excessive and compulsive spending. He will be a new man. A thrifty and responsible man. A simple, hard working man we can trust once again and rely upon to keep a roof over our head and burglars from our door. Things will be different, he will promise, you'll see.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
According to today's Dallas Morning News, Obama will propose a three year freeze on spending not related to national security and other programs deemed necessary to the safety of the public. (Presumably, it is Obama and his allies in congress who will deem what what is necessary and what isn't.) The freeze will take place in October, ten months from now. Obama will promise not to begin any major new spending projects regarding domestic issues such as education or the environment in the upcoming year. It is predicted that those spending limits will save no more than $15 million over the next fiscal year: an unnoticeable amount when considered against the massive federal debt expected to grow more than $9 trillion over the next decade. The interest paid monthly on that debt swamps the $15 million that is claimed will be saved. Nothing is being said about how exactly he plans to address the debt, but we are assured that something will be said. Something had better be said if he plans to convince us that he is serious about his promise to quit spending, especially because he is once again going to tell us about how much more money will have to be spent. His resolve to cut the deficit so far amounts to little more than rummaging around under the sofa cushions looking for loose change.
When Obama makes his address, and offers his promise of fiscal sobriety for the new year, he will already be working on obtaining another $150 billion for "stimulus" spending which, so far, has done little to stimulate anything but the government. Against the trillions that have been spent and are going to be spent, he will promise to save us millions. It is likely a great many will be assuaged by Obama's eloquence and sincerity regarding his promise to change his ways. There are many who want to be convinced. When he stands there and soothingly tells us how things are going to be different now, how he will stop spending and work hard to fix things, and we look into those big, brown eyes of his, many of us will believe him. But, like many addicts, Obama will not quit today, or even tomorrow, but soon, he will promise, when things are better and the time is right. He had better, otherwise the American public will leave him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)