From: Brent on
On 2009-11-06, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>> On 2009-11-05, Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)> wrote:
>>>> Then the rest of you need to get off your lazy asses and get your
>>>> elected representatives to enact similar legislation. If we could do
>>>> it, you can, too.
>>> Exactly. If one isn't happy with the laws, talk to the people who are
>>> responsible for writing them, not a bunch of random nobodies on the
>>> Internet.
>> I have to wonder if the people who write the above have ever written
>> their so-called representives. Eventually one learns it's pretty
>> pointless.

> I've found little point in writing or calling _my_ representatives,
> because they usually agree with me. In the few areas where I disagree
> with their actions, the most common response is "You're right, but I'd
> get killed in the next election if I did that."

Sure it wasn't just 'killed'? :) I don't know who your representives
are but to be in that much agreement with any of them outside a few
exceptions sounds rather disturbing. One of the VERY rare occasions I
got an actual response from a representive it was not one I could vote
for but I wrote him because of his enlightened keep-right-except to pass
legislation. I gave a quick primer on the 85th percentile method for
speed limits. The reply was him saying it was 'interesting'. That's it.

> OTOH, there's not much point in writing or calling the others because
> they know I can't vote for them.

> Still, letting the politicians know your views is important because (a)
> it shows you actually care about a particular issue, unlike a poll, and
> (b) you can give more detailed position information (or even an entire
> proposal) than the simple "for", "against", or "don't know" that most
> polls limit you to.

And then you get a stock form letter reply that shows they didn't even
take the time to read it.

>> Especially when said representives vote entirely different than nearly
>> everyone who wrote and called them to express their views.

> So toss 'em out at the next election. Contribute to or even campaign
> for their opponent--provided their opponent has a different position,
> which they often don't.

That worked well for the POTUS. People voted for change and got George
Bush's 3rd term. someone once said 'if voting changed anything it would
be illegal'. Speaking of the POTUS, he's one of the representives I used
to write.

> Another trick is voting in the _opposite_ party's primary rather than
> your own, so you can try to tilt the opponent selection to someone that
> is less offensive to you. Most people ignore the primaries, so your
> vote has significantly more power there as well.

1) The lesser evil is still evil.
2) The two party system does not offer opposites. It offers two slightly
different forms of statism.
3) Here in c(r)ook county there is only one primary to vote in, the
democrat primary, it is the election. The ballot for the republican
party primary is usually nearly blank. To support the one worthwild
(IMO) canidate for POTUS last year I had to give up voting in a number
of local elections decided by the democrat primary.
4) The election process is anything but fair. I predict Todd Stroger
will be re-elected c(r)ook county board president but few if anyone,
probably nobody, will admit having voted for him.

The system just doesn't work, isn't fair, and the choices well
controlled. That's why everything stays the course.

Just checked my email, I got a nice ignorant of the facts reply from a
representive again. Nice Iran scare-mongering coupled with calls for
economic sanctions and an attitude of using 'stength' that will probably
eventually lead to war. Fun. More killing, more death, more empire. For
what? Lies and paranoia. He actually expects me to believe that Iran's
newish enrichment facility was secret when the IAEA was notified as
required by treaty. Democrat or republican, it's the same nonsense.

From: Scott M. Kozel on
Stephen Sprunk <stephen(a)> wrote:
> Scott M. Kozel wrote:
>> Bernd Felsche <berfel(a)> wrote:
>>> "Scott M. Kozel" <kozelsm(a)> wrote:
>>>> 99% of the public road mileage is non-limited-access.
>>> Source of stats? And how are the 99% measured?
>> Centerline miles. In the U.S. there are over 4 million miles of public
>> roads, and about 44 thousand miles of Interstate highways.
> It'd be better to count lane-miles, and you haven't counted US and state
> highways, which are far more numerous.

That is irrelevant to the original point that I responded to, the
complaint that you can't ride a bike or walk on a freeway. About 99% of
the public road mileage is non-freeway.

Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites
Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C.
Capital Beltway Projects
Philadelphia and Delaware Valley
From: Matthew Russotto on
In article <2h57f5pn5v3ecrn8buj3co70idpecfoipt(a)>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> wrote:
>Last time on, russotto(a) (Matthew
>Russotto) said:
>>>>It's easy to prove your point if you just make up numbers.
>>>Are you claiming that their numbers are made up? If so, you'll
>>>cheerfully supply the correct numbers as well as your source for them,
>>I'm not going to go through such lengths to argue with a hit-and-run
>>poster quoting from whatever his latest holy book is.
>Translation: you cannot refuse my points with substantive points of
>your own, so you resort to Ad Homonem attacks.

You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the
numbers. And if the standard is that anti-car folk get to post a
bunch of numbers without any real backing, and they stand until
non-anti-car folk provide figures which are verifiable, the game is
The problem with socialism is there's always
someone with less ability and more need.
From: Larry Sheldon on
Matthew Russotto wrote:

> You don't have any points. You're not the person who posted the
> numbers. And if the standard is that anti-car folk get to post a
> bunch of numbers without any real backing, and they stand until
> non-anti-car folk provide figures which are verifiable, the game is
> rigged.

Watching enlightenment occur is a wonderful thing.
From: Miles Bader on
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan(a)> writes:
>>... and isn't too young or too old, and hasn't had their license
>>suspended or revoked, and who hasn't been convicted of certain offenses,
>>and who can afford insurance, and is in the country legally, etc.
>>There are a _lot_ of people who can't drive for one reason or another.
> And there are a lot more who SHOULDN'T drive, but do so anyway because
> the current public transit system isn't as usable as it should be. How
> many Russel Weller types could we remove from the roads if they had
> adequate alternatives to driving available to them?

.... not to mention, er, "temporarily incapacitated" (i.e., drunk) people ....


Everywhere is walking distance if you have the time. -- Steven Wright