Bike Lane Logic

As Monty Python says...and now for something completely different!

As I was driving back from The City tonight, I noticed the sidewalks along the main drag...that are never used. And the bike path that is hardly ever used...and thought of all the wasted money, just because some DOT engineers came up with a concept called 'urban profiles'. The way this works is that if a road is of a certain size, in a certain place, it must have a median, curb and gutter, bikepath and sidewalks on each side.

Think about the crisis we have in infrastructure and you begin to appreciate what a crime it is, really, that scarce public funds get spent on an 'ideal' road profile that, apart from the road surface itself, doesn't get used! Not only is the money spent wastefully installing these unused/little used appurtenances, but then they have to be maintained...in perpetuity. If we could just curb wasteful actions like these, and tailor and right-size the infrastructure, then we could address REAL needs...not wants, or desires, that drain the public treasury.

Another way to highlight how unquestioned assumptions like this drive and drain our resources is to think of it this way:

We mandate that bicycles, which, when I was a kid, drove on sidewalks, must drive on the road (with or without bikelanes, in this case, we will assume, with), with the flow of traffic. Meanwhile, there is a perfectly good (and much safer) underused sidewalk a few feet away. Think about this! Would any of you agree that we should, to save money, eliminate sidewalks as an improvement and mandate that the pedestrians walk in the BIKE LANE, along with the bikes?! I doubt it! Madness, you say! But...

All a bike rider is...is a pedestrian on a bike! Sharing the roadway with up to 10 ton trucks, travelling up to 45 mph in most urban sections. The bike rider even must go with the flow, so he can't see what is going on behind him.

Wouldn't it make more sense (silly me, as if that would make a difference to an urban transportation planner!) for BIKES and PEOPLE to share the much, much safer sidewalk? After all, they are about the same size, close to the same weight...and the bikes and people can walk in any direction they like, as long as it is safe. Which it would be!

Think of the savings, eliminating all those unnecessary and INTRINSICALLY DANGEROUS bike paths. We are talking major capital improvement bucks... and saving on YEARS of maintenance. Billions, over time. BILLIONS.

And what kind of society says that 1,000 pound motorcycles (and those are BIG ones!) can share the roadway with those 10 ton trucks? Why not stick the bicycles out there too! All a motorcycle is is a BIG moped---a motorized bike. And worse, if the motorcycle owner buys a minimal insurance policy, he doesn't have to wear a helmet!But oftentimes, bicyclists do! CRAZY.

And then there are the laws that allow 6 year old children- FIRST GRADERS, for crying out loud- to operate 500 lb. 4-wheelers, no helmet required, no parental supervision required...off road! Uneven surfaces! Trees! Ditches! If that isn't a form of parental neglect, at the least, I don't know what is.

Why is common sense so...uncommon!

The unquestioned, un-rational assumptions cost lives and money. Blood and treasure. We grow livid at a few thousand combat deaths among our military who are trained for , and expect to be, in hazardous situations, where their lives are at risk.

But, we don't even think about 50,000 traffic deaths a year...most totally avoidable if only a seat belt was worn, or the driver was sober.

Crazy. And we don't even question these assumptions.

CRAZY...just scratches the surface on our institutional lunacy.

M.C.

"Judicial DeMeanor"

Sotomayor Samba II
Judge Sotomayor is widely quoted as having said that the judgement of a "wise Latina woman" is superior to that of (old) white males (and presumably old, white females, too); her judgement in the Connecticut fire department test case was unanimously overturned by the USSC; and a number of Senators have said directly, or directly, that she is lying to the Senate, under oath, about previously statements and actions (and lost is that she was member of an all women's club until AFTER her nomination was made). As one Senator remarked (I couldn't believe he would actually say this, out loud---hooray! It's exactly what I was thinking!)---'What do you think would happen to me, as a white male, if I said and did the things you did?'. Sotomayor's rejoinder was that she could understand how he felt about all that (ah, empathy!), but...you had to consider the context (what does THAT mean?).

However, Senator Arlen Specter clarified all that for us, by telling us what is THE really, really important quality that this nominee brings to the table- she has a 'judicial demeanor'!

So THAT is what it takes to become a Supreme. It's all about 'attitude'!

And the "Lapdog Republicans" are rolling over as fast as they can, announcing they won't hold up the hearings, announcing as early as they can they will vote yes, etc.

Honestly, I am not sure what kind of judge she will make. BUT, she has a history of making the kind of comments and allusions that would sink any white male/female candidate for ANY position at the federal level. The fact that this history of comments, allusions and associations (The Belizean Grove, La Raza, etc) is being given such short shrift means that, ironically, she is being given a pass, most likely BECAUSE she is a 'minority' candidate. Racism and sexism being given a pass for these reasons---isn't that racism in and of itself?

Russians refuse to shake hands with Obama?

No! This is a typical example of Obama being VERY CLEVER. Remember when he kowtowed to the Saudi King---and then denied that we had seen that with our very eyes? (He did kowtow). Then there were the two cases wherein he allegedly is looking at the 'backside' of first one (16 year old) and then another (older) youth delegate and staffer, respectively, at the G8 Summit. In the first case, he actually was looking elsewhere (checking where he was going to step). In the second case, hard to say.

Now this. The right wing blogosphere just ignited upon seeing the MSNBC Andrea Mitchell video that seems to show a line of Russians refusing to shake Obama's hand, but shaking the Russian President's! Just one problem...not so! The edited video skips past Obama shaking hands with Russians to Obama introducing American staffers to President Medvedev.

Here is where he is so clever. If you look at how Obama is holding his hands, you can see that a case can be made (this is what my wife saw) that he is deliberately making it appear that he is being snubbed. You may be skeptical of this, but, I emphasize, there is no overstating the guile and wiliness of this individual. Look how he is 'hiding in plain sight" on the birth certificate issue!

There are two motives here. First, he is looking back over his shoulder to the Saudi incident, where he did exactly what is seen. By discrediting subsequent 'video veritas' moments, he casts doubt on THAT incident---subsequent events provide cover for preceding events.

And, more importantly---the 'right' (and a few on the 'left' and mainstreams media, too---especially in regard to the G8) jumped right on the bandwagon---and look foolish after the fact. Therefore, discrediting their FUTURE credibility. And intimidating them. After all, if what you see turns out to be not what you think it was, and the President is right, after all, every time...

I have said in the past that President Obama is not the "sharpest knife in the drawer". I withdraw that hasty assessment. This is one sharp dude. And the more dangerous for it.

Truth must be served, not just what we 'would like to see'. Every time a 'scandal' like this pops up, we who want to hold the President accountable must give it a second and third look before deciding whether we 'trust our lying eyes'! OUR future credibility depends on it. Putin may be have a black belt in judo; Obama is a master of political ju-jitsu. We must make strenuous efforts to ensure that he cannot gain leverage against the truth.

No, you won't read this or anything like it in the mainstream media and blogs- they have been both co-opted and embarrassed at the same time. Nullified, is more like it. Even Helen Thomas recently said that even Nixon never did 'anything like what Obama is doing'. (Query: Was she criticizing the President- or admiring him? Or both?).

Think about it. Think about why this blog is named SAMIZDAT Republic. Only the underground press can shine the light, even now. It will get worse---hopefully, it will eventually get better.

Let's pray so, and soon.

Veritas.

M.C.














http://www.bluegrasspundit.com/2009/07/russians-refuse-to-shake-hands-with.html

SARAH PALIN- A TRULY LIBERATED WOMAN

Sarah Palin is liberated by her Faith.

Sarah Palin is liberated by her personal strength of principled conviction.

Sarah Palin is liberated by her politics.

FAITH LIBERATION: Faith in God and trust in HIM, following THE Higher calling, first and foremost.

PRINCIPLED CONVICTION: She is convicted that her principles are true and should be born witness to by living them as well as talking about them. Her decision to love Trig as the unique person he is, and not to treat him as a disposable item, is but one example of that. Her willingness to quit the 'game' for a higher calling, is another. Putting family first (only after God, but also, as a responsibility before God) is poignant and the most recently visited example of this.

How can anyone say she has no empathy, as Purdum recently wrote?!

POLITICS: She lives in the belief that true Conservatism is the only path that will lead to a future for our country. Another aspect of her higher calling.. wherein she leads, does not follow the pack, but blazes her own trail. She sets the pace and the stage for a greater day for America.

And 'they' hate her for it. But their hate (Purdum, Dowd, others) does nothing to diminish her, or to invalidate her beliefs. And they hate that worst of all.

Which is why almost all the attacks are ad hominem---from Tina Fey to Maureen Dowd ("one nutty puppy"). It's ALL they can attack. And they hate that too.

She believes in the old principles of freedom of speech and freedom to live free! She is a successful mother, leader and woman. Her success, her courage show how poorly they live, and how far from any real principles they are.

And they hate her example of how a free woman lives, according to the Light that guides her, most of all. Because---the darkness cannot stand against the Light.

Stay tuned, there is more to come from this free spirited, truly liberated American original from the last frontier.

M.C.

ONE INSPECTOR GENERAL, TWO INSPECTOR GENERALS, THREE INSPECTOR GENERALS- MORE?

So now it comes out that Obama has fired, or is about to fire, THREE Inspector Generals---all of whom have allegedly acted adversely to the interests of the President or his friends.

Time for a special prosecutor.

WALPIN UPDATE

The President fires Walpin in violation of a law he co-sponsored. He attracts criticism from his own party,most notably Senator Claire McCaskill. Wait---the President has learned how to unscramble eggs, according to media reports. After the fact he issued a letter to Congress enumerating his 'reasons' for firing Walpin (as we said recently , the President sought, and obtained forgiveness):

"Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who had raised questions about the firing Tuesday, released a statement Wednesday in light of the letter saying the president's reasons are "substantial" and the decision to remove Walpin "appears well-founded." She said the letter puts the White House in "full compliance" with the law, which requires the president to provide an explanation before firing an inspector general.Walpin, though, concluded that his firing stems from bad blood between him and the board, as well as with Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson -- an Obama supporter whom he had investigated for alleged misuse of federal funds. He said his performance at the May meeting drew criticism because he issued two reports critical of the board. In one, he criticized the settlement reached in the Johnson case; in the other, he criticized the use of millions of dollars for a program at the City University of New York."The board at that meeting was clearly angry at my temerity," he said. "

So, the letter wasn't timely; as for the reasons, as reported in the Washington Post, they don't stand up to scrutiny- reports a real time witness:

IG witness Blows Up White House Excuse

By QHillyer on June 17, 2009 into Water Cooler

"We have found an exclusive witness who directly contradicts multiple aspects of the official White House explanation for firing AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin. Separately, one part of the White House explanation treads on exceedingly shaky ground that raises the specter of improper age discrimination.

President Barack Obama's highly unusual move to fire an inspector general has drawn bipartisan inquiries from Members of both the House and Senate who are worried about protecting the independence of inspectors general. In response, White House Special Counsel Norman Eisen made a number of allegations against Mr. Walpin in a letter to Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) and Susan Collins (R-Maine). Many of the Eisen letter's charges are rather vague (“he had engaged in other troubling and inappropriate conduct”; “Mr. Walpin had become unduly disruptive to agency operations”).

Two allegations are more specific. 1)There was a “May 20, 2009 Board meeting at which Mr. Walpin was confused, disoriented, unable to answer questions and exhibited other behavior that led the Board to question his capacity to serve.” 2)“We further learned that Mr. Walpin had been absent from the Corporation's headquarters, insisting upon working form his home in New York over the objections of the Corporation's Board.” Mr. Walpin dispute these statements, as might be expected. But now, in a Washington Times exclusive, so does another official who was a first-hand witness at several of the key meetings involved. The witness, whose bona fides are unimpeachable, is on the agency's payroll, and thus spoke on grounds of anonymity. The Washington Times contacted him through our own research, without Mr. Walpin's knowledge or suggestion.

The second issue is simpler to explain, so let's start there. In January, Mr. Walpin, 77, informed then-President George W. Bush's administration that he would be resigning his post, largely because he and his wife of 52 years had tired of his weekly commute away from his home with her in New York to the offices in Washington, D.C. He claims, and others confirm, that several career staff members subsequently talked him out of resigning, saying that they were proud of the work they were doing under him, and that they suggested he could often just telecommute from New York. When he accepted their pleading and decided to stay, one staff member told the Times today, “Everybody was pleased. He really had taken charge of the office and gave it a sense of mission that everybody felt proud of.” A witness at a subsequent meeting among Mr. Walpin and the agency's general counsel, Frank Trinity, and acting CEO, Nicola Goren, confirms Mr. Walpin's account – namely, that Mr. Trinity and Ms. Goren said they had no objection to the telecommuting arrangement and that (in Mr. Walpin's recounting of it) “there is no reason why it can't work.” Mr. Walpin told the Times that a standing audit committee of the agency's board – consisting of chairman Alan Solomont, Vice Chairman Steven Goldsmith, and board member Eric Tanenblatt – lightly questioned the arrangement at one meeting, but agreed to “let's see how it works.” After that, he said, “I never heard a whimper” of complaint about the arrangement from the board or anybody else. “I never heard an objection.” Again, the witness largely corroborates his account. The witness was not at the original meeting with the audit committee, but attended several later full board meetings in which Mr. Walpin mentioned his telecommuting arrangement without a single objection being raised. Furthermore, both Mr. Walpin and the independent witness said Mr. Walpin always was extremely accessible regardless of where he was working that day, and that the board never indicated otherwise. Independently, both volunteered that Mr. Walpin had made clear the telecommuting would last on a trial basis only through June anyway, at which time they would review the set-up to see how well it was working. So much for Mr. Walpin “insisting” on telecommuting “over the objections of the Corporation's Board.”

Now let's examine the second item of contention, the May 20 meeting at which Mr. Walpin allegedly was “confused” and “disoriented.” Before discussing the actual events of the meeting, consider several points. First the allegation comes awfully close to profiling Mr. Walpin through reference to characteristics often thought to be age-related. By questioning his “capacity to serve” without establishing a pattern of such alleged behavior or providing any medical report confirming a lack of “capacity,” the White House skirts dangerously close to illegal age discrimination. It is worth noting that nobody ever alleged that such a pattern of disorientation existed. Even if “confusion” did occur at one meeting, that does not constitute grounds for dismissing an independent IG absent other evidence of incapacity. An IG is by law an independent, apolitical official who can be removed only for just cause. Through several lengthy interviews with the Washington Times and numerous television and radio appearances since his dismissal, Mr. Walpin has proved to be mentally sharp as a tack. With not a single suggestion to the contrary on any other known occasion, this citation of incapacity is scurrilous and, arguably, defamatory. Indeed, congressional staff might ask if it could be grounds for a complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

That said.... what did, actually, happen at the meeting? By the staff member/witness's account, later independently confirmed by Mr. Walpin, the IG had been working around the clock before the meeting, overseeing reports and reactions thereto concerning a case in Sacramento embarrassing to a close Obama ally and a case in New York highly embarrassing to board itself of the Corporation for National and Community Service. By both independent accounts, Mr. Walpin opened the meeting by chastising the board for particularly weak oversight of the grants, involving the Teaching Fellows program of the City University of New York. By both accounts, the board met Mr. Walpin's report with considerable hostility and repeated interruptions, during which the questions ranged without much logical order over several different topics. At some point, the board asked Mr. Walpin to leave the room for 15 minutes while discussing the matter in private. When Mr. Walpin returned, he found his papers out of order. The witness confirms that Mr. Walpin asked for time to get his papers back in their proper order, but was denied that courtesy. “I was also denied time to review my notes,” Mr. Walpin said. Mr. Walpin continues: “There was no inability on my part to express myself before I was asked to leave for 15 minutes. After, there was indeed one question I didn't understand, because so many different items were on the table at once. I also felt physically ill in the middle of that meeting, and indeed was very ill that night. But even if I appeared to others to be confused that one time , that was based on just one occasion out of hundreds [of communications with the board]. Two weeks after that I had a long telephone meeting with the [audit] committee. The only confusion that existed then was the committee's confusion about its own duties.”

The witness, who agreed that Mr. Walpin and the board “weren't connecting” at the meeting after the board hectored him and denied him time to get his notes back in order, agrees that never before or since has he seen Mr. Walpin the slightest bit “confused.” “Was Barack Obama 'incapacitated' because he got confused once and said there are 56 states?” asked Mr. Walpin. “Of course not. Do I lack the capacity to serve because of one occasion where they were hostile to me? That's baloney.”

Mr. Walpin notes one other anomaly. On Tuesday June 9, just one day before the White House first asked him to step down, the agency asked him to make a speech on June 23 in San Francisco to a conference of some 2,000 staff members and grantees. The invitation, he said, was delivered by Gretchen Van De Veer, director of the Office of Leadership Development and Training at the Corporation for National and Community Service. “They begged me to come,” he said. “Why would they do that if they thought I am incapacitated?” Previous Washington Times editorials have shown the highly suspicious nature of President Obama's move to fire Mr. Walpin. Today's witness adds fuel to those suspicions about the White House's motivations and propriety in this affair."

THE FINAL WORD

Here's an angle on Obama's actions against Walpin, specifically, and IGs in general, that most people wouldn't realize, unless you worked in the field, as I have:

Obama is a 'former' "community organizer"---community organizers work closely with non-profits (like Mayor Johnson's "St. HOPE Academy"), and non-profits are always, always running into headaches with Inspector General types. Maybe our President (or those close to him) had a close, unhappy encounter or two with IG types in the past, and now he is evening the score.

V is for Vendetta.

Or maybe M is for Michelle?

Stay tuned...as Drudge says: "developing".

A CLEARLY ILLEGAL ACT

For the first time, the President has his hands tied to a clearly illegal act. The abrupt and suspect termination of Inspector General Walpin, as it was conducted by the President and his staff, violates the provisions of the Inspector General Act that Obama himself voted for while he was Senator Obama! In this he has outdone John Kerry who voted "for the war in Iraq before he voted against it." The magnitude of this folly---or more likely, breathtaking arrogance and disregard for the law and/or anything that happened preceding his election to the Presidency is truly beyond anything we have seen any President do since Nixon. Among other things, President Obama violated the notice (advise and consent) requirements to Congress and the statutorily required time line. Even top Democrats have concluded the President violated the law.

So what happens next? It's likely Obama will 'seek forgiveness' since he did not 'ask permission', so to speak. He will try to do this privately with the Majority, and will ignore Republicans, if he can. Speaking of Republicans, this is an issue they can run with, if they but will. The appearances, Mayor Johnson being a prime supporter of the President, should enable them to score heavily against the Administration, if they but will. But will they?

Imagine this for a moment...

"President Bush today fired Inspector General Walpin over his handling of an AmeriCorps investigation, which investigation revealed that Bush's supporter, Mayor Johnson, misspent federal funds and was forced, including personally, to pay back hundreds of thousands of misspent dollars. Bush's action is in violation of the Inspector General Act..."

What do you think would be happening if the above scenario had occurred? One word sums it up:

IMPEACHMENT!

Submerged in all this is this question, which is material:

Even if, as alleged, Inspector General Walpin DID mishandle the investigation, grandstand to the media, and royally tick off the U.S. Attorney---is Walpin right in his conclusions?

The answer: obviously he is, as money has been paid back, including by the Mayor himself. The only reason Mayor Johnson is not being prosecuted is that the U.S. Attorney himself is making political points by NOT prosecuting the case---all the more to spike the ball with the IG and support the President's "case".

And does anyone doubt that President Obama's hand was in this BEFORE it came to light? Can you say "obstruction of justice"?

OK, Congress and especially 'Pubbies!---here is your chance to begin to redeem yourselves with the public and stand on the principle that we are a nation of laws, not a proto-fascist state- a kakistocracy, where the worst lead, and no man is safe in the law.

What will it be?

UIGHURS: Frolic at our expense

Why did Bermuda go behind Britain's back to make a secret deal with to accept the "Bermuda Four" Uighurs? The U.S. freely admits it kept the deal secret until it was done to "avoid opposition"! And this isn't even questioned! Imagine, what would break loose if the BUSH administration...

An exclusive photo of the Uighurs, as provided by Rushan Abbas. From L to R: Salahidin Abdulahad, Ablikim Turahun, lawyers Sabin Willett and Susan Baker Manning, Khalil Manut, and Abdulla Abdulqadir.

The Bottom Line

In case you haven't picked up on it, this all is an extension of the 'big lie' tactic---writ VERY large and growing, to whit:

If you do so much, so wrong, so fast and so often, no one can keep up, much less think about WHY it happened and, as Lenin famously posited:

" Kto Kogo?"= "Who gains"?

Who, Indeed?

M.C.

How Far We Have Fallen

Ah, the poor Palin clan. Target for every lunacy the fascist left can throw at them- including infamously limelighting the (statutory or otherwise) fantasy rape of one daughter or another. Under pressure, Letterman gave a non-apology. He REALLY was referring not to 14 year old Willow, but 18 year old Bristol. As if that made everything alright.

This is bad enough, but, what follows is worse.

Kathleen Parker, once a reliable fount of common sense, seems to have totally lost her moral bearings in the Obamanation. A few days ago she wrote a column that seemed to start out condemning Letterman's shtick. However, after a few lines, she matched his 'non-apology' with her 'non-condemnation.' She chided that we all need to remember that Letterman is a comedian (really?) and he was just doing what comedians do, after all---he just took it a step too far. And woe be to us, let's just stay away from censorship! After all, he was just taking two seemingly unassociated things ("as comedians often do") and putting them together for comic relief.

Sure. Right. Uh Huh.

Realizing , perhaps innately, that SHE was going too far, she was moved at one point to declaim (after pointing out that Bristol and Willow where being put "out there" by Governor Palin) that she was NOT saying they (Palins) "asked for it" (as in "rape victims are asking for it).

What intellectual poverty. What lack of common sense- and sensibility.

How sad...Kathleen Parker, a mainstream journalist, basically saying it's ok to have "humor" like this, on national television. Once upon a time, no one would even hint about a child being raped in front of her mother, at a baseball game, by a player---or even about a governor having a "slutty stewardess look"---I wonder how stewardesses feel about that?

Kathleen didn't say. Just another day in 2009 America.



M.C.

EMPIRICAL PROOF OF LIBERAL/PRO-OBAMA MEDIA BIAS (among other things such as protofascism, rigging the market and classic self-dealing)

As if any additional proof was needed! However, consider the following:

Case 1: Bill Clinton demands and receives the resignation of all Federal District Attorneys. The 'Big Media' sees nothing irregular in this. After all , the President has a right to pick his team, right? Of course, law enforcement officers, and especially officers of the court, are supposed to be impartial and apolitical, not on any 'side' or 'team'.

Fast forward to the Bush Administration and the AG Gonzalez scandal. Remember the uproar (and subsequent resignation of AG Gonzalez) when it was alleged that there might have been 'political' reasons for the requests for resignations from the DAs? Of course, Clinton was smarter than Bush in requiring ALL the attorneys to resign en masse. (Democrats are better than the Republicans in wielding the levers of power, remember?)




Now, Obama is reported to be closing auto dealerships based on political affiliation, i.e., REPUBLICAN dealerships are being closed. And there is no general uproar.

Draw your own conclusions.

Obama and his ilk are worthy of the Kingfisher (Huey Long, former governor of Louisiana)---or either Mayor Daley.

Liberal fascism is closer than you think- it's here! The news outlets report it every day- and of great concern, most don't give it a second thought.

Speaking of 'giving it a thought'= aside for the overt corruption of closing dealers on a partisan basis, might Obama Inc., who now owns a majority of GM, be shortcutting potential competition as well. Triangulation at its 'finest'!


M.C.