tpm, citing Mylroie, esp. after putting a "Dr." up there, is a good debating tactic for persuading people who don't know about her work. For those of us who do, it seriously undermines your side. Or, what Dan said.
I don't think you can do that in the U.S. It seems like the philosophy of life there emphasizes that awful model of suburb and malls, and driving to get eveywhere. At least outside the big cities, like Nicephoras said. You might make it work there, anyway, if you invested in public transport.
Pretty humorous from someone whose "side" often cites Michael Moore to bolster their arguments. Oh, and before you come back with a quick jibe, I wasn't the one (nor was my party) to give him a prominent place our the Democratic National Convention. Talk about seriously undermining your side....
It can work anywhere in the US, but legislators have to make a conscious choice to make it work. It isn't like Spain, where people lived close together because at one point it was a necessity. But, to give an example, there's really no reason Portland, OR shouldn't be like any other American city, like Phoenix, Dallas, the Bay Area, and so on. But it is different. Far from perfect, but certainly better. Reason why? Legislators took action, and local planning commissions continue to take action. Unfortunately, we lost a major measure that could undermine a lot of Metro area planning. We'll see how it pans out. It may not matter because at this point a lot of Portlanders are cool with the ideals of the Metro Council. The best places to buy are within the Metro area. The very best places to buy are in very much urban areas that have blown up in the past few years - the prime examples being the Pearl District, NW 23rd area, and a few burgeoning areas even in Northeast Portland. I disagree that this can't be a national issue. I think baby steps can and should be taken to get it on more voters minds, even those in OK. I can see the day when Mike Segroves grabs his Smith & Wesson, stops by Norman Coffee, insults SoccerFan, and catches the train to go hunting. He may be 85 years old by the time it happens. But as I said way back in this thread, pressures on oil are going to force people to really think about their 35 minute (standard in most US cities) to 2 hour (standard in places like SoCal and Atlanta) daily commutes. We'll see. I'm betting that I'm right. So far, I very much have been.
Consider your surrender on the Iraq WMD issue accepted. Michael Moore was also at the RNC convention, by the way. And no way he's as crazy a nutbar as, say, Zell Miller - who was your freaking keynote speaker. By the way, I did a quick poll, and I found surprisingly few people saying "I'm against the war in Iraq, I'm fine with civil unions, and Bush has screwed up the economy - but Michael Moore is impolite, so I'm voting for Bush." Take a clue pill.
http://mattwelch.com/archives/week_2004_11_07.html#002860 The whole thing is great. Really. An essential read for understanding the nature of conservative media bias. Please, anytime you want to throw that big of a hanging curve, bring it on.
What the feds needs to do, as step #1, is stop subsidizing oil. Make oil taxes equal the amount the feds spend. IOW, make it pay for part (most?) of the defense budget. Of coures, all of that empty red space out west has just as much weight in the Senate as Manhattan, so it's unlikely this could ever pass. Just another example of red states sucking on the federal welfare teat.
Not sure exactly what you mean by surrender on the Iraq WMD issue as I never addressed it. I stuck to the Iraq- al Queda connection on which there seems to be no doubt except on the pacifist Left. Indeed he was, but he wasn't sitting with Republican former Presidents. The DNC chairman also attended the premier of his propaganda film and actually endorsed it. Regarding the Moore - Miller reference - scary thing is you probably believe it. You're probably on the "secession" bandwagon too....whatever. Looks like you did your poll at the kool-aid station after Farenheit 9/11: nice representative sample, maybe you should do some exit polling.......
You should get out more. Our "allies" in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Pakistan all had far deeper connections with AQ than Iraq.
Dave, I read the whole thing, but honestly don't see anything regarding the nature of conservative media bias. Regarding your Bush - Falwell "Sister Souljah" moment comment: Sister Souljah was an inconsequential rap "star" who was not connected in any way to politics. That wasn't much of a limb that Bill Clinton climbed on. How is it that the left is always going on about Republicans needing to repudiate the extreme elements of the party when the Democrats have never, ever done the same. I don't recall Falwell speaking at the RNC, but remember clearly seeing "Rev." Al Sharpton speak at the DNC and was even a Presidential candidate. WTF? The quintessential race-baiter and proven liar (Tawana Brawley). Chuckie Shumer is clearly out there as is Barbara Boxer - have they ever been repudiated? NO! Nor will they be. Luckily for all of us that the country is moving away from the views of the extreme left-wing, so the proponents get to labor in relative obscurity. Comments on the Matt Welch page: 1. in the "Gracious" post, he just cites a sample of conservative commentatorscommentators When you speak about media bias, whether liberal (yes) or conservative (?) it's the inherent bias in news reporting that's at issue. Commentators (pundits) opineopine on issues and are not attempting objectivity. 2. if you are suggesting that the "Souljah's of Fortune" post indicates conservative bias, I still don't see it. Those articles were all written afterafter Kerry lost, so of course ther references will be primarily about him. These guys get paid to write and the latest "in-thing" is to fiure out why Kerry lost, so they're writing their blather. Plus, the whole incident has become Democrat lore, not Republican, so why would anyone write about it in reference to Bush.
I get out plenty....and you forgot Iran. I'll admit, don't know much about the Qatar connection. As you clearly show, the Middle East is one hell of a challenge - one that won't be helped by bailing out of Iraq (note: not going to rise to the bait and re-hash the Iraq war issue - don't have the time or energy). We need to get the job done, then leave. We also need to lean hard on the other Islamic states to reduce the terrorist threat. Hopefully the Euro's don't drop the ball with Iran, it's a nice test of our "alliance" with them. The Iranian people are showing signs of taking control of their own destiny, which is a positive sign. Hopefully success in Iraq and Afghanistan will push the Paks to come clean. Hoefully the Saudi's don't implode. If so, we're looking at a deep worldwide recession.
Fixed. The idea that Iran and Iraq are part of some alliance or "axis" is so silly that only the dimmest of world leaders would possibly...oh.
I'm not sure you really read the article. Or maybe you didn't understand it. 1. The Dems can't bar him from being a candidate, any more than the GOPs could keep David Duke from running in...1992? 2. Sharpton really has come a long way from the 80s. I respect him for that. I have a huge problem with him not admitting how full of sh** he was back then. In any event, at least he wasn't doing coke at Camp David like Bush II. Anyway, my point is this...he ran for president. He is not now a nutjob. He was given a minor slot at the convention. The equivalent would be if Pat Robertson acts respecably for another 10 years, then runs for president. Find them blaming 9/11 on the feminists, and then you're making sense. Until then, you're just using labels, making assertions without any documentation. You've completely missed the point. Some in the MSM are talking about a fringe character like Michael Moore, but not a mainstream character like Rick Santorum, or the new guy from Oklahoma, or the new guy from South Carolina. When you're a US senator, and you believe in the death penalty for doctors who perform abortions, that's different from anything about Michael Moore. One thing the left has to do is get the words of these right wing extremists to be as prominent in the MSM as the words of left wing extremists. If they can do that, you'll see the 2008 GOP nominee faced with a Hobson's choice...either repudiate the Robertsonesque types, and lose enough of the evangelical vote to lose the election, or not repudiate them, and lose Ohio, Iowa, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, maybe Virginia and Arizona.