home

Friday Morning Open Thread

Jon BonJovi, the best face in rock and roll, turns 50. Since I'm sure I'm his biggest fan west of the Mississippi, I just have to play one of my favorite songs, "We Weren't Born to Follow." Hit the full screen button and watch the great collage of images. (I know them all by heart.)

"Walking beside the guilty and the innocent
How will you raise your hand when they call your name?"

This is an open thread, all topics welcome.

< AG Provides Details of Jerry Sandusky's Alleged Sexual Assaults | Perrish Cox: Not Guilty Verdict >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Tom Tomorrow (5.00 / 0) (#2)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:59:51 AM EST
    weighs in on insecure power mad men.

    Limbaugh calls female, GU law student ... (5.00 / 5) (#3)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:11:00 AM EST
    ... a "slut" and a "prostitute" for testifying re: the need for affordable birth control.  Then he doubles down, asking her "Who bought your condoms in sixth grade?" and offering to purchase "all the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as possible."

    What a pathetic excuse for a man.

    And there is more... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:40:01 AM EST
    the double double down...

    "So Miss Fluke, and the rest of you Feminazis, here's the deal," Limbaugh said on his radio show Thursday. "If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch."

    The half a man's perverted obsession with this issue is downright creepy.  

    Parent

    No doubt - pass the loofah (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:34:30 AM EST
    Her response was the correct one:

       We are fortunate to live in a democracy where everyone is entitled to their own opinions regarding legitimate policy differences. Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse.

        No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices.

        The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women's health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.

    OTOH - part of me would love to see her call him out publicly and dare him to meet with her publicly and make those accusations to her face.  Yeah - it plays into his motive of making outrageous comments for publicity's sake - but it would be fun to watch the coward backpedal.

    Parent

    I wouldn't wanna subject any woman... (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:13:48 AM EST
    to being within 25 feet of this perv...he might start drooling and leering and playing pocket pool.

    Parent
    I was reading about this just now (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:44:04 AM EST
    I can't imagine that his wife sleeps with him.  The idea of it disgusts me.  It would be like bathing in slime.

    Parent
    Ewww! Limbaugh is married? (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:51:50 AM EST
    There is a woman on this earth who agreed to marry that guy? It boggles the mind.

    Parent
    I just looked it up. Limbaugh (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:54:27 AM EST
    has somehow persuaded four different women to marry him. He married his first in 1977, and is currently married to the fourth.

    Four women. I'm, I'm, speechless.

    Parent

    Many divorces (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:58:01 AM EST
    His new spouse is very pretty.  How does she do it?  Ugh!  Gross! Retch! Gag!

    Parent
    The divorces I understand. What woman (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:00:41 AM EST
    wouldn't divorce him? It's the original decision to marry him that confounds me, and kind of grosses me out.

    Parent
    Self hatred (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:02:59 AM EST
    For money? (none / 0) (#28)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:03:27 AM EST
    For money? Surely not .... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Peter G on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:33:03 AM EST
    That would maker his wife a "prostitute" and a "slut," wouldn't it?

    Parent
    Not in Rush's mind, cuz (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    She isn't doing it for free.  In the he man woman haters club free=slut and charging=whore.  Either way you lose, you were doomed at conception.  Your sin was being born female, your sin original.

    Parent
    Limbaugh is a very sick person (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:41:32 PM EST
    I was going to say sick "man" (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:00:06 PM EST
    But he is no man.

    Karen Finney on MSNBC called Romney a "coward" for not condemning Limbaugh....

    Put all conservatives on record regarding this.....

    Parent

    Heh. I'm sure (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:37:43 AM EST
    he'd find it in his heart to forgive her. ;-)

    Parent
    Good guess... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:15:19 AM EST
    I mean there are all kinds, so who knows...but I am forced to think it is his money that has been married multiple times.

    Parent
    Maybe it is the money. At least for wives 2-4. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:18:44 AM EST
    I don't think he had any money in '77 when he first married.

    I've got to say, though, that if I was straight, there would be no amount of money that could persuade me to get within 100 feet of that man.

    Parent

    Some people (none / 0) (#32)
    by Edger on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    will do anything for it, I guess...

    Parent
    I understand why he might (none / 0) (#34)
    by brodie on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:21:50 AM EST
    have been able to find four women, particularly after his financial success, but I always thought Elton John was a non sellout of firm liberal principles.  What was up with that?

    Parent
    Agreed, and I also (none / 0) (#38)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:28:42 AM EST
    found it questionable  that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas officiated for marriage number two--and at Clarence and Ginny's house.

    Parent
    Elton John was very disappointing (none / 0) (#127)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:40:58 PM EST
    I hope Sandra Fluke, the Georgetown Univ. (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:23:36 AM EST
    law student, considers a defamation civil suit against Rush. Ms. Fluke is a private citizen, not a government official or an otherwise public person.  The named and personalized characterization could be shown to be false, malicious and intended to portray  her in a negative manner.  Rush would claim that his remarks were his brand of comedy, but it seems to cross into slander.

    Parent
    As I noted, I hope she is (none / 0) (#113)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:23:29 PM EST
    considering her legal options.  Of course, it would not be easy, no litigation is.  She also is still a student and that, too, might factor into her consideration.  However, I do believe Ms. Fluke could posit a strong case.  I have no knowledge of her personal life but transporting a 30-year old woman, nun or not,  to a national and public characterization of slut and prostitute is a bridge to somewhere--a potential defamation suit.  

    Ms. Fluke appears committed to women's health issues, having been an organizer for Catholic Students for Women's Health.  Moreover, being a leader on women's reproductive health at a Catholic institution, albeit a Jesuit one,  augurs well for the courage necessary to withstand the inevitable rush from Limbaugh.

    Limbaugh has deep pockets, for sure,  but I doubt that Rush wold relish this kind of  legal case. But,  winning or settling a case in Ms. Flukes favor would be one small step for womankind.  These are, of course, just my thoughts.  

    Parent

    Slander lawsuits can be tricky (none / 0) (#126)
    by MKS on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 07:39:14 PM EST
    The defense would be it was just opinion based on public facts and just parody.....

    And, the depo of the Ms. Fluke would be horrid.

    Parent

    Obama calls law student ... (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:52:23 PM EST
    ... Sandra Fluke to offer his support, and Limbaugh makes more juvenile comments:

    On his nationally syndicated show, Limbaugh made a "kissing noise with his lips," ABC News reported, and said of Obama, "What a great guy. ... What is she 30 years old?"

    Which is also kinda funny, considering Limbaugh's 4th wife is 26 years younger than Rush.

    Parent

    Good for the President (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by Towanda on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:21:13 PM EST
    for that.  This is how to use the bully pulpit against a bully like Limbaugh.  Impressive of Obama -- but as a dad of daughters, I would bet that this situation really reached his heart.

    Parent
    Boehner calls Rush's comments ... (none / 0) (#69)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:15:09 PM EST
    ... "inappropriate", while as are DCCC references to his comments in a fundraising email:

    "The speaker obviously believes the use of those words was inappropriate, as is trying to raise money off the situation," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said in a statement.

    Yet other wingers are defending Limbaugh's comments - Erick Erickson, Mona Charen, Tina Korbe, Brent Baker, Jim Hoft, Todd Starnes, ...

    Parent

    Bog Orange has a petition to advertisers (none / 0) (#71)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:23:40 PM EST
    here. Worth signing. One big advertiser has already dropped rush. Could he finally have gone too far? I sure hope so.

    Parent
    Good to see (none / 0) (#90)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:39:26 PM EST
    Looks like he's lost Sleep Train and Sleep Number.

    Hopefully, just the first of many.

    Parent

    Can't say I care enough... (none / 0) (#82)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:20:43 PM EST
    to wanna do something about the hate clown...I'm content just ridiculing him..

    And I fully support his right to spout all the vile nonsense his wicked little heart desires.

    Parent

    I also support his 1st Amend right ... (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:42:36 PM EST
    ... to spew his vile garbage - at least free from government interference.  That being said, I also support the right of people to call him on his bull$hit and advertisers to pull their advertising money, as well as the right for the subjects of his comments to sue his @ss for defamation/slander.

    Parent
    What was the line that Tobie used on West Wing (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:44:42 PM EST
    in a similar situation? Something about jerks having the right to spew their garbage, but they didn't have a right to spew it on the public's airwaves.

    Parent
    Indeed... (none / 0) (#94)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:47:14 PM EST
    he's far more deserving of that kinda free speech boycott solution than say Ellen Degeneres.

    If I were the young lady I'd pass on the lawsuit, for the reasons Donald mentioned and for the simple reason she'd have to keep thinking about Rush F*ckin' Limbaugh...not sure any potential award is worth that mess;)

    Besides, everybody except the dittoheads already knows Rush has only slandered and defamed his own perverted self with his own words(again), and nobody else.

    Parent

    He has the right (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:44:17 PM EST
    to speak, and we have the right to alert his advertisers that the way they are spending their money is offensive.

    Parent
    I am especially on hair trigger this week (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:03:52 PM EST
    after having a go-around with my rightie sister-in-law, who eats all this stuff right up. I never listen to Rush myself, but just knowing he is out their polluting the minds of otherwise well meaning people is sometimes too much to take.

    He is not some sincere guy trying to make the world a better place, however much I disagree with him on what that looks like. He is just a clown making a boatload of money by stirring up s***.

    Parent

    They got me last night (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:23:48 AM EST
    Went to Dothan for an allergy shot alone, saw a new restaurant and decided to stop there for dinner and pick something to go for spouse and Josh.  There was a large group of ladies in my age range sitting near me.  They were having drinks, so getting louder.

    Did you know that President Obama is behind the price of gasoline, that he wants gas to be sky high so that ALL OF US have to give up our gas powered cars ASAP and drive those electric cars around?  It is a secret conspiracy.

    It's the most absurd thing I've heard in our precarious financial situation, no President in an election year facing this economic situation would do such a thing.  The notion is ridiculous.

    Then I get home and hear that the Virginia Senate did pass that an abortion ultrasound will stay in your medical file for 7 years as proof of your baby hating and to shame you, and I just crashed in a manic sort of way.

    I did get out my pasta machine for polymer clay though and I made new canes until 2:00 a.m.  You can really crank on that machine right now living in Bama.  It is very hard on me right now to be living here with this President facing reelection.  I can't believe the things people are saying in public right now.  The hatred is huge, and it just feels like Southern Conservatives are so angry that they want kill someone, they want to hurt someone....anyone.

    Can't imagine living there (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Yman on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:35:20 AM EST
    Traveled there numerous times when I worked at DOJ - after hearing some of the comments made by people in public and without hesitation, I had to check the calender to verify what decade/century I was in.

    Gotta be hard to bite your tongue some times ...

    Parent

    Regarding the gas thing... (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 08:43:17 AM EST
    I'm sorry to say there is a shred of truth in what the ladies say...not an Obama secret conspiracy by any means, but I've long heard some lefties saying the higher the gas price the better, that we should tax like Europe...and drive working people further to the brink of the poorhouse.

    Parent
    I'm fine paying European prices (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:00:27 AM EST
    Once the economy is on track again.  Just because lefties have said such things at different times, it does not mean that that is this President's policy that he is employing.  He's no phucking super lefty, not by my definition :)  Didn't you see Rachel's chart of the Presidents?  Obama is more conservative that JFK, Clinton, Carter....I think he was equal to LBJ.

    What is happening to the price of fuel puts our sputtering economy in grave danger at this point.  And if you want to know why, here is a great blogging voice on the economy explaining why the speculators have all this money at this time said better than I can say.

    Parent

    Nice link... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:15:13 AM EST
    Well written in laymen's terms I could understand.

    Fundamental flaws in the entire world economic model coming home to roost...it appears we are totally uber-f*cked.

    Parent

    Seems like the wrong time to be (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:38:15 AM EST
    going all hard-ass on Iran, though, with comments like this:

    GOLDBERG: Go back to this language, `All options on the table.' You've probably said it 50 or 100 times. And a lot of people believe it, but the two main intended audiences, the supreme leader of Iran and the prime minister of Israel, you could argue, don't entirely trust this. The impression we get is that the Israeli government thinks this is a vague expression that's been used for so many years. Is there some ramping-up of the rhetoric you're going to give them?

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: I think the Israeli people understand it, I think the American people understand it, and I think the Iranians understand it. It means a political component that involves isolating Iran; it means an economic component that involves unprecedented and crippling sanctions; it means a diplomatic component in which we have been able to strengthen the coalition that presents Iran with various options through the P-5 plus 1 and ensures that the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency] is robust in evaluating Iran's military program; and it includes a military component. And I think people understand that.

    I think that the Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff. I also don't, as a matter of sound policy, go around advertising exactly what our intentions are. But I think both the Iranian and the Israeli governments recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say.

    David Dayen:

    Goldberg got out of Obama what Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to get next week - an enunciation of a red line with respect to Iran. That's a dramatic step with real consequences. Kevin Drum is being too cute by half. You cannot talk about the effect of gas prices on elections without talking about the effect of gas prices on the overall economy. While Drum has a defeatist take about constrained oil supply, there isn't any doubt that geopolitics play a big role in the run-up on prices. Heck, the Iranian embargo constrains oil supply. There is a direct line between what Obama said to Jeffrey Goldberg and his own re-election prospects. I'm in no position to be a political counselor to the White House, but you'd think they'd have figured this out on their own. I admit to also having the interest of not seeing a deadly regional war in the Middle East leading to the deaths of tens of thousands, if not more.

    The confluence of a presidential election, a struggling economy, a still-volatile and unstable Iraq/Afghanistan, and the undeniable influence of
    Israel on what happens next is looking more and more to me like the kind of perfect storm that doesn't end well - on any front.  There is way too much saber-rattling going on for my comfort, and the one-note messaging is reminding me way too much of how we ended up in Iraq.

    I would be happy - really, really happy - to be reading this wrong.

    Parent

    My husband said that the military is beginning (none / 0) (#63)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    To become concerned about the situation because Russia is drawing a line in Syria.  They weren't expecting that and don't fully understand why Russia has taken such a hackles raised stance yet.  But if Russia is going to throw fits about us helping Syrians oust Assad, then feelings around Israel hitting Iran aren't easy to predict.  So we must prevent that hit from occurring every way we can.

    But Iran cannot shut down the Strait.  My husband said they don't have the forces or the firepower to do it.

    Parent

    Syria has long been a proxy for Iran, both (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:48:30 PM EST
    Russian client states. Does not seem surprising to me.

    Israel starting something with Iran is the mother of all neo-con dreams.

    Parent

    Russia is not what Russia once was though (none / 0) (#137)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 04, 2012 at 09:49:58 AM EST
    And as our relationship with Russia improves we work on understanding why they would want to continue onward with some of their old policy surrounding client states.  That has actually changed a lot. My husband says they believe that this recent push is mostly about letting the U.S. know that what Russia thinks still matters and exerting some power.  The United States seems too powerful these days for everyone's taste.

    Parent
    Good One... (none / 0) (#13)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:27:17 AM EST
    Obama a lefty...

    Let's not forget who sets gas prices, Wall Street and their never gambling on Crude futures.  Not exactly a raging group of liberals...

    But who cares, it's not like those idiots were going to vote for Obama if gas was free.

    Parent

    Agreed... (none / 0) (#16)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:37:48 AM EST
    Obama is no lefty...thats the nonsense part of their rant.  

    Some real lefties wet dream is the highest gas prices imaginable, to force or incentivize people to reduce their pollution of the planet via their tailpipe.  That was my only point...a real lefty might wanna force the real houswives of Dothan into a Volt if they could.  Obama is obviously not this person;)

    Parent

    While I understand the ideal of attempting to (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    lower pollution rates via forcing people to buy high-mileage vehicles, the economy of the choice just isn't there. For example the Chevy Volt, built on a Cruze chassis, sells for over $41k. The Cruze sells for $17k.

    Over the course of ten years ownership, and assuming 15k/year mileage in mixed conditions, the Cruze will consume around 4000 gallons of gas. At $4/gallon that's $16k - which is still $8k less than the price difference between the Volt and the Cruze. Gas needs to be $6/gallon just to balance the purchase prices, and this scenario doesn't take the cost of purchasing electricity into consideration, nor the pollution caused by coal plants making the electricity, damage done to the planet to strip mine rare earth elements to make the batteries for the Volt, etc.

    To me, a real leftie would be in favor of helping working class folks get a safe, dependable vehicle that they can afford and serves their needs - or better yet, helps fund mass transit possibilities. Cars like the Volt don't help.

    Parent

    Farmboy, I particularly like (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:20:04 PM EST
    the mass transit suggestion.  This country is so far behind Western Europe in mass transit.  It's okay in many big cities (well, not Los Angeles), but most smaller cities and towns have terrible options.  
    And I like your analysis of costs over the lifetime of the vehicle.  How many people (working class/truly middle class people in particular) can realistically afford $41,000?  Shoot, I'm old enough to remember when that would have been very, very expensive for a house, never mind a car!  And then, as you mentioned, the consequences of the generation of more electricity.  This is something that few people talk about.

    Parent
    I agree with you that we're behind the rest of (5.00 / 0) (#88)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:32:59 PM EST
    the Western world in mass transit, but out here in flyover land it's really a conundrum. The jobs are in the cities, but the folks who work those jobs live in all sorts of areas: rural, suburbs, and urban.  There is no one-size-fits all mass transit solution for mixed populations, so each day 50k cars flow in and out of downtown Des Moines. As long as the workforce out here is scattered, I don't see how that will change.

    As to the price of cars... 40 years ago the National Average Wage Index was $7,133. As of 2010 it was $41,673. source In 1972 the average price of a domestic car was $4,034 - 56% of the yearly wage. in 2011 it's $30,000 - 72%. source So it is getting worse.

    And yeah, I bought my first house in 1987 for $30k. That's why when I was looking for a new vehicle last summer I picked up a 2008 with low miles. The first owner handled the sticker shock for me, thank you very much, and the Edge is still new-ish.

    Parent

    not just there (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:18:40 PM EST
    it's everywhere.  The US is poorly designed for Mass transit compared to Europe - and hopefully we will never be in the position Europe is in - because the situation in Europe is that there is almost zero open space and that continent is packed in like sardines.  We have a lot more space and a lot fewer people.  There can be huge upsides to that.  But I would like to see a return to denser cities and small towns from the suburban culture, because frankly it's just poor planning to spread all the urban workers out like that.

    Parent
    When my G-g-g-whatever-parents hit the Iowa (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Farmboy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:37:27 PM EST
    territory there was lots to do in rural areas. You could crop farm, sure, but you could also mine, mill lumber or grain, raise dairy cattle, be a carpenter, or even get all entrepreneurial and set up a country store at a crossroad. My family has done all of these. Point is, you could make a living and raise a family in a rural area, and that's what my ancestors did.

    During my grandparents' time that life was gone. The mills had moved to the cities, the mines had died out, and nobody was stopping at the little country store anymore as they whizzed by in their newfangled automobuggies. All that was left was farming, and over time farms had to be bigger and bigger just to keep one family going, so Dad took a job at the Ford plant in the city and farmed evenings and weekends. Mom took a run at raising chickens for the eggs, but by the time I was born she too was working in town. And when you can't work where you live, something's wrong.

    Long story short, there was no planning for long-distance commutes when this area was settled. If you really, really had to go to town you could find one about five miles in any direction - a convenient distance for a horse-drawn wagon. But take a fifty mile round trip commute every day? That's just crazy talk.

    Parent

    Exactly, Farmboy (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 04:51:49 PM EST
    Where I live, very many of the families have lived here for generations.  They could make a living out of farming, and some were craftsmen (they were carpenters or cabinet-makers or barn-builders or tool-makers or had a sawmill, etc).  Nobody up here can make a living out of farming any more.  Many still farm, but it's more of a "side-line" for a bit of extra income- they must have another job just to make ends meet.

    Parent
    I live 25 miles from my job, which is (none / 0) (#100)
    by Anne on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:58:13 PM EST
    in downtown Baltimore.  We have light rail, bus and Metro subway transportation, as well as the Charm City Circulator, a relatively new bus option that is completely free and operates within for the most part within a small radius of downtown.

    But, here's the problem: I would have to take the light rail as my form of public transportation.  The northern end is 5 miles from my house, so first I have to drive to the station.  Then, I board the train for the ride into town, and it takes a good hour (shoot, it takes 15 minutes from the initial stop to the next one, which is about 3 miles away), because in addition to the regular stops, once it gets into the city, it has to stop at all the red traffic lights.  The stop I would get off at is by Camden Yards, probably close to a mile from the office.  I could try and catch the Circulator, which would get me to a stop in the block where I work, but you never know whether you will wait 5 minutes or 20.

    I did this when it was first open - back when I had to drive closer in to get on the train.  It was and is a form of torture for someone like me who gets motion sick.

    My drive in takes about 30 minutes, and I park in the building where I work; time is also money, and it's less stressful in the end.

    The return trip comes with other problems.  Getting on the train at Camden Yards, you are likely to be sharing it with people you don't dare make eye contact with as you hope they will be getting off before you do.  Because that's the other problem: crime at the stations.  I remember one time having to leave work in the late morning because one of my kids got sick at school, and as I rode on a mostly empty train to a poorly patrolled parking lot, all I could think was, "if someone conks me on the head, no one will know to even look for me for hours."

    We want to get where we want to go quickly, cheaply and as conveniently and safely as possible - and none of the public mass transit options where I live really fit that bill.  For quite a long time, the light rail here wasn't even completely double-tracked, so in the sections where opposing trains had to share a track, you could sit waiting if the other train was running behind.  Not to mention the fun of total breakdown, where you sit on the tracks in a car that has no heat or cooling waiting for them to get buses in to get you the rest of the way.

    Which is probably why, as I see the trains on my drive in and out of the city every day, I note that they are mostly empty, most of the time.


    Parent

    Unfortunately, Baltimore (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 03:50:14 PM EST
    is not exactly the model for mass transit.  Many long years ago, Mr. Z. and I lived in Boston quite comfortably without a car.  I used the T to get to work, and to school, and it was easy.  We lived in San Francisco, too.  We had a car then, but almost never drove it within the city- we pretty much always took public transit, so much easier (and way cheaper, back then, at least).  I visit New York City a lot- we get around quite well there without a vehicle.  I also used to go to Chicago a lot- easy to get around without a car.  There are cities where this is quite doable, depending upon where you live.  Baltimore is not one of them, unfortunately.  And Washington DC's Metro is not exactly covering itself with glory in recent years, either- prices keep going up and service keeps deteriorating.  Mass transit has to be not just affordable, but convenient and efficient, or nobody will use it.  

    Parent
    Mass Transit... (none / 0) (#76)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:56:09 PM EST
    must also be affordable...when they want over 30 bucks for a peak round trip from my ghetto burb on Long Island to NYC on the LIRR, thats not gonna be useful as part of the solution.  22 bucks one way if ya buy the ticket on the train!

    The "discount" monthly pass is going for 334 dollars.  I did a little cost/benefit analysis awhile back and figured out it did not pay to sell the whip and rock mass transit, all things considered.  

    Parent

    you must have parking (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:12:12 PM EST
    that's the main thing that makes it so much more expensive to drive around here.  Then again I'm on the "T", with a monthly pass that costs $60.

    If I were to drive, the cheaper place to park near my office costs $19 a day.  They may go a little cheaper if you get a monthly spot, but still, that's insanity.  I now have a car so I can use it for days when I have to go on site visits, or grocery shopping, or whatever, but I won't use it to drive to work everyday.  And I hope I never have to.  There's nothing more annoying than driving a car at rush hour.

    Parent

    Zorba daughter (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:23:19 PM EST
    lives in New York City.  She doesn't have a car (and doesn't need one- she walks to work, and if going farther, she takes the subway; on very rare occasions, she takes a taxi).  She basically cannot afford a car.  Not only is the car insurance expensive, she would have to pay for a place to park the d@mned thing, which is very, very expensive.  Yes, the long-term garages are a bit cheaper than the daily/monthly garages, but they're not exactly free.

    Parent
    Here in DC (none / 0) (#85)
    by jbindc on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:29:41 PM EST
    Parking can be expensive, but you can get "deals" if you come in early (which I do).  To take the metro from my apartment  (15 miles away and a half mile walk - or a shuttle ride) costs me $11.50 per day during peak (and they are talking about raising rates agsin).  I can park 2 blocks from my office for $12, share a ride in (so parking is really only $6, and gas is shared) and I have the freedom of my car and a usually shorter commute home than if I take public transportation.

    Parent
    I wouldn't be commuting to NYC... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:31:58 PM EST
    that was just for reference, I have free parking at work and my train fare would be cheaper than that, though with a considerable walk from home to station and station to work....no subways out here, no useful bus service out here.  It doesn't pay when you consider the time lost...driving I'm door to door in less than a half hour...by train and walk I'd be looking at almost two hours door to door...thats 3 hours a day of my time down the drain, which is fine if you're saving a ton of money, but for practically the same price its crazy.

    For leisure, I only take the train when I know I'll be getting hammered....otherwise I drive to Manhattan then circle Manhattan for as long as it takes to find a free spot...those parking garages are indeed outrageous.

    Parent

    I have found (none / 0) (#96)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:49:58 PM EST
    that parking for free in Manhattan is way easier than parking for free in downtown Boston.  And the $19 per day parking is the early-bird special.  Goes up to $25.

    I love living on the T.  Luckily there are still a few places around where you can sort of "afford" it (there is no place that's actually cheap, but I basically live in the Queens of Boston).  I wouldn't give up that commute for anything though.  15 minute walk, followed by 5 minute wait, 15 minute train, and a final 5 minute walk.

    The one time I really like having a car is when I go anywhere that's not downtown.  All trains lead to downtown, so if you are going to a neighborhood on another line, it could be next to yours but you have to go all the way in and then all the way out again.  In that case it's much faster to drive and there is usually parking in the neighborhoods.

    Parent

    Do you know about (none / 0) (#136)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Mar 03, 2012 at 12:02:04 PM EST
    the Municipal Parking garage on W 53 Street -- assuming it's still there it's much cheaper than other paid parking.

    Parent
    I agree, Dog (none / 0) (#81)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:18:52 PM EST
    It has to be affordable, as well as convenient, frequent, and reliable.  Very frankly, it needs to be subsidized in most, if not all, areas, and I think it should be.  You could say that this is in our national interests- if they want us to be less reliant on foreign oil (and potentially unstable regimes), why not build more mass transit and subsidize it?  Take the money from the defense budget.  (And the DEA, and the TSA......ah well, I'm just dreaming, there.)  Not to mention the benefits to the environment.  

    Parent
    I'm with you... (none / 0) (#37)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:24:42 AM EST
    sh*t a real lefty might throw the paycheck to paycheck crowd a bone right now and temporarily reduce or eliminate gasoline taxes, till (hopefully) the speculators chill and the price returns to earth.

    Or fire up the printers for us for a change and do a little capital injection into working class households...like (gasp!) G-Dub did with those checks for a couple hundred bucks....his best idea ever.

    Parent

    It is not so much leftys as it is (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by caseyOR on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    economists. Their formulas and graphs and whatnot tell them that if the price of gas goes high enough, people will drive less. Thus, less gas will be needed, less pollution will be spewed into the air.

    And they are right. At some price point people will not be able to buy gas, and so will not be driving.

    Rather than reduce or eliminate the gas tax, which won't have any long-lasting or appreciable effect on prices,but will contribute to our already disintegrating roads and bridges, I would like to see rampant speculation stopped. Right now. In its tracks.

    Speculators (yeah, you, Goldman Sachs) are what is driving these insane price increases. Stop the betting.

    At some time, people will have to change how they get around. The diminishing supply of gasoline will force us into other modes of transport. Ideally, we would now be building the necessary transportation to keep people mobile when that time comes. Of course, we are not doing that.

    Parent

    I get the theoritical aspect... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:46:20 AM EST
    and I agree...if gas is 6-7-8 bucks a gallon behavior will change and local pollution would likely decrease.  Thats all well and good for Mother Earth, but comes at a very high cost to Mother Hubbard's stress level and quality of life.

    In a country this large with so much rural area and such insufficient public transportation, people need to drive to get to work...and in this job market, sometimes drive a long way for a paycut.  When driving to get to work eats up more of their stagnant or decreasing paycheck, staying in food, shelter, and clothing becomes more difficult.  The theory is fine for textbooks but in real life it will put a hurtin' on a lot of people.

    And when speculators own our government, ya can forget about the government tackling the problem from that end.  Sh&t half of Congress is probably insider trading their way to a fortune on oil.  That leaves a gas tax holiday or a gas stamp program kinda like food stamps for relief...I'm outta ideas.

    Parent

    Problem is that either Mother Hubbard today (none / 0) (#61)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:35:29 PM EST
    gets stressed out or her children and grandchildren get even worse treatment. Cheap gas can't last forever. At some point we have to start paving the way for future generations to even have a chance.

    Parent
    Isn't the reality that (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:41:20 AM EST
    (a) The best way to push innovation into alternative fuels and cheap electric cars and such is high gas prices

    AND

    (b) there will never be a time (during a recession or otherwise) that people will welcome high gas prices.

    The reality is that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.

    That's really the most effective way to force innovation and that's how the Chevy Volts and similar cars will become cheap.  There is just never a good time for high gas prices and whoever is in office when they rise will get the blame (despite the fact that the POTUS has very, very little control over such things.

    Personally, I think we should suck it up in the next 3 years, place a high tax on gas and then force the market to give us cheap alternatives. It will hurt but what will hurt worse is delaying the inevitable.  EU style gas prices are coming.  We need to use that to propel innovation now.

    Parent

    Problem is... (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:57:06 AM EST
    only the paycheck to paycheck brigade will be asked to suck it up and suffer...2 dollar gas vs 10 dollar gas makes no difference to the 1%, its a rounding error.  To the family barely treading water it is food off the table.

    Though I guess its never been any other way has it...it's always the poor that suffer the collateral damage of "progress".

    Parent

    Not true KDog (none / 0) (#47)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:23:14 AM EST
    Yes the folks on the lower end of the scale suffer more, but gas prices impact nearly everything.  Transportation companies like UPS and Fedex will take massive hits that will result in lower profits and ultimately fewer jobs.  Same with grocery stores and Best Buy and anyone else who depends on products being driven to their stores for sale.

    It will impact everyone. But long term, everyone is better off if we do it.

    And we are at or near peak oil right now so the prices are going to start rising rapidly regardless.  I'd rather we be ready when they rise than enjoy 5 years of lower prices and then get smacked in the mouth hard when there is no other choice.  Sacrifice now to avoid much, much greater pain in the future.

    Parent

    Impact is different than suffer.... (none / 0) (#50)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:27:24 AM EST
    ABG...don't worry about UPS and FedEx...they're fuel surcharge is covering their end, believe you me...I can't tell ya how many phone calls I've gotten here in the last few weeks from customers b*tching about freight charges.  Had one just yesterday, a 15 lb. carton next day air from KY to NY cost the customer 130 bucks and change...feels like yesterday that shipment ran around 6o-70 bucks.

    Yes, gas prices impact everything, but the suffering is limited to those with no money and no customer down the line to pass the increased costs on to.

    Parent

    Raise the tax, with some of the proceeds (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    going to helping the people at the bottom pay for it. There is a way to make it work if there were the political will to do it.

    But there never will be the will until it is at a real crisis point down the line.

    Parent

    I'm down... (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:09:13 PM EST
    I'm down with any solution to this massive long-term problem that doesn't involve driving what was formerly known as the middle class even closer to poverty.

    Parent
    You start making sense (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by sj on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 10:57:15 AM EST
    and then you insert your opinion as fact.  If you had changed this:
    [The reality is] that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.
    to something like this:
    [I believe] that if we want the $10,000 electric car, the only way to get there is $8 a gallon gas.
    I would have happily recommended this comment because it is well considered.  Plus, I agree with you.  But then you stated your opinion as fact.

    Parent
    If we reallocated... (5.00 / 3) (#44)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:04:42 AM EST
    the entire weapons development budget into fuel efficient/alternative fuel vehicle development, we could get there without 8 dolla a gallon gas....no?

    Parent
    Of course (none / 0) (#49)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:26:08 AM EST
    reallocation in that way is the best but we all know that's not going to happen.  There is no profit or other compelling incentive to do it.

    I think we have to find solutions to this real problem that can be implemented within our current system.

    Parent

    Our current system... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:31:03 AM EST
    guarantees the suffering will be limited to those without representation in our government...aka the poor and the working stiffs.

    Our current system may be the root of the problem my friend;)

    Parent

    That is all true (none / 0) (#87)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:32:22 PM EST
    but we can't throw up our hands.

    Need to find the best solution possible within the system to the extent that it can't be changed.


    Parent

    Where is the bold legislator... (none / 0) (#99)
    by kdog on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:56:38 PM EST
    to propose a gas stamp program along the lines of the food stamp program?  Thats all I can think of that has half a snowball's chance in hell within the current system...make that 1/8th a snowball's chance in hell;)

    On the backs of the poor it is!  Same as it ever was, same as it ever was...maybe throwing up our hands is the play:(  

    Parent

    All of this is my opinion (none / 0) (#48)
    by AngryBlackGuy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:23:57 AM EST
    That's implied in everything I say for the most part.

    Parent
    Not so much (none / 0) (#97)
    by sj on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:55:01 PM EST
    That's implied in everything I say for the most part.
    We all know it.  Or assume it.   But you state your opinions as facts.  So we don't know if YOU know it.  Have a good weekend.

    Parent
    there will never be a good time (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:05:48 AM EST
    to raise gas prices.  But there are bad times.  This would be a very bad time.

    Other than that I agree with you.

    Parent

    The Government Doesn't Control Gas Prices (none / 0) (#60)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:34:00 PM EST
    ...beyond the tax portion.  

    WS is the price determiner, Shell doesn't say, hey look the prices of oil is $100 a barrel, give us $101, they get what the market dictates they get which is based on projections and estimates.

    The government can manipulate it slightly with the reserves, but they have no hand in determining price, directly.

    What they can alter are subsidies, increase lease prices, tax write offs, and other various factors to make gas less appealing and alternatives more appealing.

    Why not cap and trade it, you get X gallons of fuel, then all these giant 4x4's and long haul commuters might decide that living 80 miles from work isn't worth the cost of buying fuel from the the green 'idiots' on an open market.  They might even think economical cars look a lot better.

    Of course it would be more complex, but I think if every person is treated the same and have the option of actually turning a profit by selling credits on a market, a lot of the no naysayers might think twice.  It would also trickle cash to people who are too poor to drive.

    Parent

    Agreed. A higher gas tax (none / 0) (#59)
    by KeysDan on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:33:41 PM EST
    offers the twin goals of fostering innovation and promoting conservation.  Indeed, it has long been my opinion that a gas tax of one dollar per gallon should have been added when gasoline was in the $2 dollar range.  The nation would have captured the revenue and gasoline would have been conserved.

    The price per gallon did rise with increased demand and the revenues were captured by OPEC and other oil producers/refiners/speculators.  The timing is not ripe for an increase, but just as soon as the economy is relatively stabilized, an increase in gasoline tax should be implemented--although an increase up to a cost of $8 per gallon may be neither feasible nor necessary.  To address the inequities this "flat tax" would impose, a system of "gasoline stamps" for low/moderate incomes and gas tax credits for users such as farmers, could be developed.  

    Parent

    Obama is left handed... (none / 0) (#56)
    by fishcamp on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    Well, either taxation or scarcity is required ... (none / 0) (#121)
    by cymro on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    ... for the price of gas to rise and for people to be motivated to buy less of it. And we won't use less gas until people really want to use less gas, and that won't happen until it hurts them to keep using the same amount. It's basic economics.

    Parent
    Well... (none / 0) (#11)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:22:55 AM EST
    ...turn on the News, drunk ladies in Alabama aren't the only was spouting the gas non-sense and the always loved, Obama is coming for your guns.

    I do feel for you, Houston is fairly liberal, but it's still in Texas and it just seems to be common knowledge.  I guess I need to get on some wort of right wing hackery email list to get it, but I am not about to dispute their truths.  Learned long ago, logic is lost on them.

    Parent

    Obama coming for the guns? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 09:48:11 AM EST
    When?  I know that people who sell guns love it when we have a Democrat for President.  I have a disabled cousin who made a fairly decent living off the Clinton Presidency.  He laughs about how crazy gun people get when we have Democrat for President.  They might already have 40 guns, but they need 40 more to protect themselves from the tyranny.

    Parent
    Someone Asked Romeny... (none / 0) (#55)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 11:46:24 AM EST
    ..yesterday, in Ohio no less, three days after the school shooting.
    A gun-owning voter asked Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in Bexley, Ohio, if he would allow him to keep his gun because the U.S. is close to becoming a "tyrannical government"

    LINK There a video as well.

    They ran out of guns here in Texas after the last election, seriously.

    Parent

    Yup - ran out of ammo here (none / 0) (#64)
    by ruffian on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 12:41:01 PM EST
    locally right after the inauguration. The rubes really do believe this stuff.

    Parent
    When the zombie apocalypse (none / 0) (#75)
    by CST on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:42:13 PM EST
    or the second civil war happens - you'll be happy you live in Texas.

    At which point us northeasterners will be totally screwed.  I've got some kitchen knives...  I'm fairly cerain I'm the only person in my immediate family who has ever shot a gun.  I have a few friends that I know have shot guns before.  I only know one person under 50 who actually owns one though, and he moved to North Carolina.

    If the government tries to impose tyranny on us, we'll have to go back to spilling tea and rabble rousing.  Which frankly, at that point, would probably be more effective than handguns.  But if it's zombies or straight up war, we're pretty screwed.

    Parent

    You Think A Liberal in the Land... (none / 0) (#93)
    by ScottW714 on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    of Right Wing wanna be cowboys will be safe if there is a civil war ?

    My door will be the first to be kicked in, and if I am lucky they will just hang me and not burn me in the city square.

    These meat-heads are all blow & show, it's why they always go after the weak and never the powerful.  Sure they can kill a deer at 100 yards, but they will load their pants when the bullets start coming their way.

    And sorry, I love my state, but we are incapable of winning any war.  The true/blue para-military isn't about to leave their fortresses and the rest are gun happy idiots that think GWB was the bestest eva.

    That being said, I grew up on a farm in Wisconsin.  There wasn't much to do but shoot the hell out of stuff.  And don't you know, with every 5th jumbo sized slurpy bought in Texas, you get a free gun.

    Parent

    Mr. Zorba and I (none / 0) (#73)
    by Zorba on Fri Mar 02, 2012 at 01:29:27 PM EST
    own guns.  We believe that reasonable (sane and not criminal) people should be able to have a reasonable number of guns, if they want.  We live way out in the country, police response time is at least half an hour (20 minutes if we're lucky), and we are prepared to use those guns for self-protection.  Having said that, we do have friends who think that they can arm themselves to meet the threat of a "tyrannical government."  Give me a break!  As I said to one close friend who thinks this way, "Come on!  You're going to be able to go up against heavily armed troops, or a tank?  And if they decide your immediate neighborhood is a threat, what are your guns going to do against a Hellfire Missile?  Or a drone attack?  If the government wants to wipe you out, you're gone.  In any case, do you realistically think that the government is going to attack its citizens in this way?"

    Parent