traderdave wrote:

dajafi wrote:This probably isn't a "politics" post per se, but what I find fascinating about the Edwards story is that seemingly before this whole thing, he wasn't a skirt-chaser.

So if you think about it, he took the biggest risk at close to the worst possible time (being a viable presidential candidate and with a terminally ill wife who was perceived as a near-saint), AND did so with a woman, Rielle Hunter, who's neither a raging super-babe nor, from most accounts, a particularly appealing human being. Weird.

What is incredible to me is that it is almost news when a politician IS NOT having an affair yet John Edwards' situation seems to have him in a class by himself.

I'd actually be surprised to learn if Bush or Obama were caught with their pants down. Maybe Bush in his drinking days committed an indiscretion or two, but there's never really been even any whispers.

The Robert Byrd part of the SNL skit was a riot.

dajafi wrote:This probably isn't a "politics" post per se, but what I find fascinating about the Edwards story is that seemingly before this whole thing, he wasn't a skirt-chaser.

And you believe that? I think it's hard to take anything anyone has to say in defense of John Edwards's character without a huge grain of salt.

Well one of the places he might have taken it is from the staffers who criticized him (there's a link earlier in this thread). They pulled no punches on anything else but they stated that he was faithful prior to Rielle.

I think that's where I got it--certainly Heileman/Halperin wouldn't have held back if there was some previous slime attached to Edwards.

This seems like the right thread to confess to often taking the regional rails without paying. I would say I have to use a ticket about 2/3 of the time. Anyone else do the same?

I've been told they don't even check sometimes, but there hasn't been a time they haven't checked on me.

best i could get away with was using my exired monthly pass once in a while. I"d use it as a book mark and have only the top poking out with the "M" sticker showing

User fees are good!

I don't pay my user fees!

Tom Tomorrow must be a former Congressman.

A less snarky but more insightful take on "bipartisanship":

I got this note from someone with many decades' experience in national politics, about a discussion between two Congressmen over details of the stimulus bill:
"GOP member: 'I'd like this in the bill.'

"Dem member response: 'If we put it in, will you vote for the bill?'

"GOP member: 'You know I can't vote for the bill.'

"Dem member: 'Then why should we put it in the bill?'
...
"Bipartisanship in the American sense means compromising on legislation so that a sufficient number of members of Congress from BOTH parties will support it, even if (as is typically the case) a few majority party members defect and most minority party members don't join. Bipartisanship consists of getting ENOUGH members of the minority party to join the (incomplete) majority in voting for major legislation. It can't happen if the minority party members vote as a block against major legislation. And that can happen only if the minority party has the ability to discipline its ranks so that none join the majority, which is the unprecedented situation we've got in Congress today.

"The way parliamentary parties maintain their discipline is straightforward. No candidate can run for office using the party label unless the party bestows that label upon him or her. And usually, the party itself and not the candidate raises and controls all the campaign funds. As every political scientist knows, the fact that in the U.S. any candidate can pick his or her own party label without needing anyone else's approval, and can also raise his or her own campaign funds, is why there cannot be and never really has been any sustained party discipline before -- even though it is a feature of parliamentary systems.

"The GOP now maintains party discipline by the equivalent of a parliamentary party's tools: The GOP can effectively deny a candidate the party label (by running a more conservative GOP candidate against him or her), and the GOP can also provide the needed funds to the candidate of the party's choice. And every GOP member of Congress knows it. (Snowe and Collins may be immune, but that's about it.)

"I've missed almost all the punditry this past week... but what I've seen seems almost like a lot of misleading fluff designed to fill the void that should follow an understanding of the foregoing, at least on the subject of 'why no bipartisanship?' There's really nothing more to be said about "why no bipartisanship," once one recognizes the GOP party discipline. On this issue, it's absolutely astounding to blame Obama or even the Congressional leadership (although Pelosi and Reid leave much to be desired otherwise). It's doubly astounding that the GOP did it once before, less perfectly, but with a very large reward for bad behavior in the form of the 1994 mid-term elections. Yet no one calls them on it effectively, and bad behavior seems about to be rewarded again...

I get Tom Tomorrow mixed up with this guy And that's apparently TT's intent, by way of homage....

dajafi wrote:Interesting little side thread on transit (and thanks to jh for posting that piece to bait pacino/kick it off).

A factor maybe difficult to quantify but IMO telling is that the nature of auto travel--in which you're on your own or with people you choose to be in the car with, able to set your own schedule, pick your own destination and put whatever you want on the radio--is simply better aligned with the "American character" than is mass transit, where you're jammed in with whoever, and subject to delays and breakdowns totally out of your control as well as the de-institutionalized schizo asking for money and/or the religious ranter shouting in your face. (This is cshort's point, I think.) Add to that the strong interest of the developers that built up the suburbs after WWII to have government cover the costs of getting people from where they (would) live to where they work, and it's not surprising that the system evolved the way it did.

You don't have to ascribe it to the greed or perfidy or malice of GM or whoever; no popular will was subverted here. A million middling early rock 'n' roll songs plus like a third of the Springsteen oeuvre suggest we Americans like us some cars.

Of course, there are what economists call negative externalities to car culture: emissions and the staggering amount of time "lost" in traffic. But--and this is the point PtK never, ever $#@! gets--in our system, you can't solve them by diktat. Nobody likes traffic and nobody wants to breathe poison; at some point, the negatives of those factors presumably outweigh the positives of car travel for enough people that you can move policy in a different direction. (And, as jh's article points out, there are economic development reasons to privilege rail over autos.) I have some optimism that we're getting there.

Hmm.

First of all, what you site as "American Character", (sort of what I was alluding to upthread at one point) can change. And didn't have to be the way it is. However, your highlighting all the benefits of one-person-one-car vs. join the masses in a crowd, is a very one-sided interpretation.

You talk about uncontrolled delays and malfunctions, versus the massive traffic jams. I suspect that in NYC, that's where you are now aren't you? That you don't drive a car to and from work very often. Get out in LA or the Bay Area or parts of New Jersey and Connecticut ... during the dot.com the traffic was insane from SF to SilValley, and people had road rage and were often more late.

I start with the assumption that we can make a rail system, light rail, and other public trans, safe, clean, efficient, affordable and ultimately more desirable as people shift their lifestyles. I went with no car for 14 years, eventually got a scooter. I was scared at first to lose what I perceived as independence and freedom and control. But it was a lot more viable and once I got used to it, it wasn't a burden or a limit. I could still rent a car for a longer trip or something and later zip-car entered to help out. This isn't necessarily viable today for people that don't live in a dense urban center -- but it could be. It also changed my perception of the city, and how I interacted with my fellow man. I was more connected and I did not get burned out from too many bad epidodes with crazy people on the street or buses. Sure, there's one or two, but no worse than some road rage with a guy cutting you off.

Given the high cost of jet fuel, how cool would it be if we had viable high speed train travel. Reaching TGV speeds.

Yes Tokyo metro is nuts. That culture is different than ours.

I just think that in 2 generations we could do things differently and not feel like we went backwards.

To not think that that the auto(truck)-makers had any part in how we got where we are (oil too), then I think people are missing a lot of the story. Trains or trucks were carrying goods across the country. Trains were on the decline, GM built trucks... it's not the entire story but an important part of it. There has been no real committment to rail for 50 years or more...

Are people really safer in their cars? Isn't there plenty of crime in mall parking lots and ATMs, that people pull up to, fast food drive-thrus n such?

I always thought it was great that Philly had such a great commuter rail system in terms of its reach in every direction. If it was a bit faster, and had newer nice cars, and segued better with Amtrak routes ... it could be built upon and more people might be able to take advantage of it. Just sayin... it's possible.

And if CBP were across for 30th street station instead of in no man's land end of So Philly where only the goes through the ghetto Subway goes ... it could have been a big spark to train and commuter train travel. The train station could have really grown too...

Paranoid stylin!

Oh... there are many reasons to call for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and there is more than just cause to call for his impeachment.

But as Bruce said, Obama's "unabated malevolence toward this country, which is unabated" makes it all the more imperative that we take action now... without delay.

How long must we wait... how long should we sit back and permit Barack Hussein Obama to rip apart the fabric of this country before we take action?
Are you terrified at Barack Obama’s campaign to change our country into a third-world nation?

Are you willing to sit back and watch Obama bulldoze our great nation?

Are you willing to let him construct a totalitarian regime... fascism, socialism, Obamaism... take your pick?
If any of the above scenarios concern you... join us.

dajafi wrote:Paranoid stylin!

Oh... there are many reasons to call for the impeachment of Barack Hussein Obama and there is more than just cause to call for his impeachment.

But as Bruce said, Obama's "unabated malevolence toward this country, which is unabated" makes it all the more imperative that we take action now... without delay.

How long must we wait... how long should we sit back and permit Barack Hussein Obama to rip apart the fabric of this country before we take action?
Are you terrified at Barack Obama’s campaign to change our country into a third-world nation?

Are you willing to sit back and watch Obama bulldoze our great nation?

Are you willing to let him construct a totalitarian regime... fascism, socialism, Obamaism... take your pick?
If any of the above scenarios concern you... join us.

Who are these people? Do they get air-time? Policy Issues Institute?

So unabated that the unabatedness itself is unabated.

Speaking of paranoid, Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky today.

/TMac

jerseyhoya wrote:Speaking of paranoid, Sarah Palin endorsed Rand Paul in Kentucky today.

/TMac

I imagine him sitting at home practicing transitions just such as this. Then looking at the mirror and saying, "It's spring training for the announcers too!"

"Tom, can you go out to the store and pick up a gallon of milk?"

"I can't right now dear, I'm busy."

*Looks back at mirror, holding stick of deodorant in hand as prop mic*

"SWINGANDAMISS! Roy Halladay is throwing anything but tastycakes out there today on the mound! We head to the bottom of the seventh, it's Philadelphia four and the Florida Marlins zero."

*Self satisfied smile*