Matt, #15 --- "...misrepresenting our opponent's hidden agendas as much as they misrepresent ours..."
My impression is that Grayson is not at all misrepresenting what current-day Republicans are saying. But maybe I am wrong. So could you please offer some examples of how Grayson is misrepresenting anything, hidden or visible? By anyone? For example, I thought his characterization of the Republican Health Care Plan was statesmanlike (I am thinking of a statesman like Churchill.)
And the primary reason Obama should turn it down is that it actually weakens him by putting him and his accomplishments (or lack so far) at the center of the global spotlight. It makes Obama the individual the issue. He doesn't need that now, especially in dealing with other world leaders much less the USA crazies.
Considering that
1. the readers of this blog are I suspect almost 100% Obama-voters,
2. the consensus seems to be that the award was not warranted
3. Obama is a very good politician,
my bet is that he will do the correct (in all ways) thing and turn down the Prize in some graceful and appropriate way.
At least I sure hope so.
Don't your timing instructions ignore the possibility that steaks come in different thicknesses?
Besides the sentiments themselves, what strikes me is the directness of Eisenhower's words. Reminds me of Obama in Cairo calling for government "that doesn't steal from the people."
Now that was strikingly clear language for a national leader, I thought. Jumped right out at me, especially said in a country where I assume the government knows little but stealing.
Besides the sentiments themselves, what strikes me is the directness of Eisenhower's words. Reminds me of Obama in Cairo calling for government "that doesn't steal from the people."
Now that was strikingly clear language for a national leader, I thought. Jumped right out at me, especially said in a country where I assume the government knows little but stealing.
A few people have mentioned that walkable neighborhoods are expensive, or at least on the more expensive side. That's generally true.
But it is not true because there is anything inherently expensive about walkable neighborhoods but primarily because walkable neighborhoods are popular. And when things get popular they tend to rise in value.
Now there is one pretty good way around this problem and James D. Macdonald started to get to having a walkable nrighborhood: change what you have.
If your neighborhood isn't walkable, you might consider what you can do to help make it walkable, including working with the town to see about laying sidewalks and changing zoning.
There is of course a lot more to transforming a car-oriented area to a walkable one. But the basic principles are neither expensive nor complicated (though I won't suggest that such changes are easy to implement in the real world of local politics and state highway departments and in some cases require truly dramatic change, the likes of which we have not yet seen much or at all in the USA so far.)
James D. MacDonald @ 18 & 19
You have thought quite a bit about dealing with emergencies. On your Jump Bag page (thanks for it, btw) you write: "Consider: laminated photocopies of important documents (e.g. marriage license, birth certificate, social security card, first page of passport)."
Going further, do you think it would be good practice to scan (or simply write down numbers) of key docs (maybe even Quicken files?) and then email it to oneself -- such as to a Google Mail account which can be accessed from anywhere an emergency may force one? Obviously there are security issues -- hack into the account and you have the complete identity. Aside from that not inconsiderable (?) issue, your response? Any suggestions on good practice to create such identity redundancy?
It probably doesn't have much to do with NYC at this time in its history -- more for emerging cities like Seattle -- but flooding of tunnels may be just one more argument in favor of above-grade lines, specifically rubber-tired ones like monorails. (I am against steel-rails above grade for reasons of noise.) Social resiliency ought to be one of the factors considered in choosing mass transit modes and putting floods aside, it's a ot easier to evaculate people from an elevated line than from a tunnel.
If JESR is offended I am sorry for that. But I don't see anything I wrote which even comes remotely close to "personally insulting."
JESR,
I don't believe that a story in the P-I -- unless it's a first-person report which starts "I saw..." -- is proof of anything except that the paper printed a story. Even that first-person report is of only limited value because the reporter is not likely to really understand what s/he is seeing. The only serious documentation which proves anything at all (i.e. in relation to the structural condition of something like a seawall or a bridge etc) would be a study from a qualified engineer which contained photos, sketches, lab reports etc etc. All else is hearsay.
Ethan at 199,
Thanks for asking.
How the public makes decisions is indeed important to me, as I assume it is to you and JESR et al. Rigorous & widespread discussion should be the precursor to major public decisions. Such discussion needs to have all the alternative courses of action put on the table. We have a Viaduct in Seattle which was damaged by an earthquake in 2001.. A public vote in spring 2007 shot down the two alternatives put before us by the politicians. Many people believed that the Viaduct and the Seawall had been damaged and needed immediate work. But as a means to an end, the politicians spun the story so that mere Repair would not work but that we needed to tear it down and do "something else." Of course there is neither the money nor the agreement about what that "something else" should be. So at long last we are doing what we should have done 6 years ago and repairing the Viaduct and those limited parts of the Seawall which actually need repair, which is only a small portion.
Btw, I really appreciate your interest and would be happy to take you on a tour should you ever visit Seattle. The whole situation is quite interesting and the lessons for public decision-making (here's where I am referring to the Iraq War tragedy) are striking, though of course as I noted, the good news is that in Seattle we had a chance to vote on what to do (because the costs were getting into the $4-5 billions and the State had set aside "only" $2 billion for what was presented as the cheapest solution.) Nonetheless, I saw some of the same myths about the need to totally replace the Viaduct and Seawall (rather than Repair) being bruted here and it reminded me of the scare talk about Iraq and WMDs. In both situations we have politicians taking a small seed of truth and trying to grow it in only one direction, if you follow the imagery. To paraphrase Rumsfeld, "You do policy with whatever facts are convenient." The claim that the Viaduct and the Seawall had to be totally replaced and could not be repaired was a "convenient mistake" (I get prissy about calling people liars) which allowed two different groups to argue for their own programs, partly on the basis that the Viaduct had to come down.
Ethan, I hope that helps.
JESR,
"... Boat Street section about a fifteen year life expectancy."
Where is this Boat Street section on the Central Waterfront? Boat Street is on Lake Union. Are you speaking of the area of the waterfront near the Boat Street Cafe on Western?
And where do you get these figures -- "fifteen year life expectancy" -- which you throw out with such blissful certainty?
We are talking so far past each other that I think we might want to reconsider the nature of our disagreement. My initial question to you was a very very simple question concerning your backup for the statement that the "seawall has to be replaced." (Emphasis on seawall and with no qualifications.) You still have not provided me a reference which would convince a fair-handed observer of the nature and extent of the seawall problem. Yet you know the problem to the degree that you can make predictions about how long a particular section will last.
My other & larger remarks about the nature of government mis-representation on the whole viaduct/seawall issue and the parallels to Iraq can be refuted by some sort of objective study -- that doesn't mean studies by proponents, btw, though even they might be useful if the source is taken into account.
You have refused to provide any references for your statements (except the very vaguest generalities.)
JESR,
Fixing a portion of the seawall adjacent to the ferry terminal is a very different proposition from having to replace the whole 2 miles of it, which is the impression left by proponents of both the Tunnel and the Surface/Transit option. They want to make things sound as bad as possible -- "The WMDs are on the launch pad right now!!" -- so that they can justify their own proposals. The reason no attention was paid to the Viaduct Repair is because it was too cheap. which is a parallel to the way in GW Bush didn't want to pay attention to enhanced inspections.
People at every level of government can distort facts to further their own tangential programs, unless they are watched very carefully. In the case of Seattle's Viaduct, there has been little critical thinking because so many people had agendas which could be served by tearing down the Viaduct. Thus no one wanted to really examine if it could be repaired nor how much of the Seawall needs complete replacement or just repair.
JESR at 189.
If you have good information -- not just "I have personal communication..." -- please share. If studies exist which can back-up your statements, please provide the links.
ESRP at 184.
It's not my affable optimistic nature which is at issue but the avoidance of reality-based analysis for both the viaduct itself and the seawall. Your non-response that "...the people I've talked to, in government and out, tend to think the published reports about the seawall are probably somewhat soft-pedaled..." is quite typical of the way the discussion has proceeded: hot air.
If you don't have an answer to my question from #183 then maybe a simple "I don't have such a source" would be a good response.
JESR @182 wrote that "Since the sea wall has to be replaced..."
I have heard that claim repeated many many times and whenever I ask for the source of the information -- something more than "the Government says..." -- I get a blank stare or a sneer of derision as in "Everyone knows..." (Like everyone knew that Iraq had WMDs?)
Well everyone does not know. While I agree with a bit of what you say above, I would like to gently challenge you to offer the source of information which allows you to say with such absolute clear certainty that "...the sea wall has to be replaced."
(Btw, I blogged on this very point several years ago and as of 2003 the facts did NOT show that the seawall had to be replaced in its entirety or even for the most part. Google my blog for seawall.)
Glinda.
There may or may not be technical issues with a tunnel in terms of safety.
My objection to it is largely that there are better ways to spend a discretionary $2-3 billion.
Glinda @ 176.
I misspoke if I gave the impression that the tunnel was still very much alive today. But as of six months ago our Mayor and many others were arguing for it strenuously; the public vote killed it -- and it was a "beauty contest" vote without even any specif financial authorization attached.
But I am sure that there are diehards who wish to see the idea revived.
The current idea of the day is to simply tear down the viaduct and substitute some sort of enhanced combo of bus/rail/surface street for the grade-separated viaduct.
Yes, I know to out-of-towners it may sound obvious and fetching: tear down the viaduct and "connect the city to its waterfront." But it's a bit more complex than that and I believe it fairly certain -- and I think it's being born out by the actions of our Governor -- that we will simply fix it.
The lesson from the Viaduct? For me it is that sometimes a nice idea may be simply that: a nice idea which is too expensive, complex and risky to actually be able to succeed.
•••
Btw, maybe "bait-and-switch" is not the best characterization for the Iraq War, I see. The basic idea is that a politician takes a serious but containable problem with a variety of answers and focuses on only one grand solution and doesn't even let any of the other solutions be discussed but diminishes them as "impractical" and "not serious." Maybe it's more of a Trojan Horse situation. though that's not right either. Anyway, that was the situation in Seattle around the Viaduct: you have a leaky roof so you use that problem as an excuse to build a brand new house 5 times as large as you have right now.
As to statements about the Alaska Way Viaduct (AWV) in Seattle such as "...It's a vital part of the transportation system, and was badly cracked in the February 2001 earthquake. It's been repaired and retrofitted, but the feeling is that it needs to be replaced."
In fact it has NOT yet been repaired or retrofitted because the damage has been a useful stalking horse for grander plans.
People use events to further theii own agendas. The damage to the AWV has been used as an excuse by people who want to tear down the AWV in order to build a tunnel or simply to tear it down because they prefer what's called the 'surface/transit' option.
Simply repairing the AWV was never seriously considered because the damage to the structure offered politicians and certain activists plausible reasons to simply tear it down.
Luckily, now fully six years later, the authorities were unable to come up with the money, the political will or the practical scenario to do anything dramatic so we are on our way to simply repairing it. Thank goodness.
Btw, the statement above that "...the feeling is that it needs to be replaced" is a statement which must be challened repeatedly. On its own terms it relies only on subjective "feeling" and such emotional response was been pushed by people who wanted to replace the AWV, not as a result of any sort of fair-handed analysis.
There is an awful lot more to this story. One of the themes with the AWV is how politicians, along with a complacent media, can use what is admittedly a real but handleable problem and transform the agenda into something far more enormous. In Seattle the issue was a viaduct which was damaged. The political solution? Transform the whole downtown. Sound vaguely like Iraq? The old bait-and-switch? Yes. The parallels are striking except that here in Seattle the voters were asked to make an open-ended financial commitment (to a tunnel) and had sense enough to say no. Sometimes the power of the purse is real handy.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2009 | 8 |
| 2007 | 13 |
Total: 21 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by David Sucher:
Show all comments by David Sucher.