Law in the Corner
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
The Seattle Center monorail is having problems getting up and running again. It is amazing that in less than two years Seattle has gone from dreams of monorail service throughout the city to having difficulty keeping a short track tourist attraction running.
You would think that this would serve as a sobering caution for proponents of light rail and other centralized transit solutions. Whether it is trains, monorails, ferries, subways, or street cars, centralized transit is always vulnerable to sudden and complete failure. I remember there was ferry strike in the early 80s that stranded many commuters in Seattle who just wanted to go home to Bainbridge or Vashon Islands. Similar strikes have crippled transit grids in other cities, most recently in New York City. This is one reason that public employee unions love centralized transit – it gives them enormous leverage at contract negotiation time.
Furthermore, as the Seattle Center monorail has shown, it is not only labor strikes that can shut down a transit service – mechanical and infrastructure failures cana lso cause a collapse of the service.
The tunnel collapse in Boston’s highway tunnel, (“The Big Dig”) ironically shows the strength of a decentralized transit system. Undoubtedly the shut down of Boston’s tunnel severely affected the commute, but drivers were still able to get home – road networks are for the most part greatly redundant. If the Boston tunnel had been for trains, however, it would be very doubtful that the trains would be able to run for several weeks. It is far cheaper to build multiple roads than it is to build multiple train lines.
Unfortunately, I doubt the current local leadership will learn this lesson – they seem stuck on rail of one form or another.
- posted by Thomas @ 11:18 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Hugh Hewitt notices the tinny squeak of Nancy Pelosi's denunciation of the North Korea missile tests:
"The missile launches by North Korea are provocative acts that warrant the strong condemnation of the United States and international community. "
"North Korea is moving outside the circle of acceptable behavior and is threatening the region, the United States, and the world. We must use every possible tool to stop North Korea's unacceptable, provocative actions including six party, multilateral, and bilateral diplomatic negotiations."
"North Korea must know without a doubt that their behavior will not be tolerated."
"North Korea is moving outside the circle of acceptable behavior and is threatening the region, the United States, and the world. We must use every possible tool to stop North Korea's unacceptable, provocative actions including six party, multilateral, and bilateral diplomatic negotiations."
"North Korea must know without a doubt that their behavior will not be tolerated."
Hugh emphasizes Pelosi's apparent ignorance of North Korea's history of barbaric behavior: "North Korea is moving outside the circle of acceptable behavior."
My complaint with this fluffy wisp of a non-statement is not its ignorance of history but its casual use of empty phrases. Hugh's point is well taken but the language is probably just a careless choice of words. What in the world is "the circle of acceptable behavior"? This sounds like some sort of prissy club in which goody-two-shoes congratulate themselves on how wonderful they are. By god I would want to move out of it too.
The real howler in the statement is Pelosi's not so strident call that "[w]e must use every possible tool to stop North Korea's unacceptable, provocative actions including six party, multilateral, and bilateral diplomatic negotiations. " Every possible tool? You mean air strikes and nukes? Really?
I suspect the phrase "every possible tool" was a nice tough sounding phrase used to camouflage the otherwise whiny tone of the statement. Liberal Democrats don't really mean "every possible tool" they mean "the tools of the circle of acceptable behavior" - like six party, multilateral, and bilateral diplomatic negotiations.
Pelosi's statement is empty and vacuous, which is not surprising as it accurately reflects the Democrat's foreign policy.
- posted by Thomas @ 8:54 PM 0 comments
Monday, July 03, 2006
Jim Miller at SoundPolitics has drawn my attention to a particularly stupid editorial by the Seattle Times.
I have always felt that the first amendment prohibition on “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press” meant the people’s right to speak or publish. Members of the press are included with all of us in these protections, but they don't have some special protection afforded by the First Amendment.
This editorial is consistent with the view that “the media” has powers and rights not available to the people as a whole. This is not only incorrect but is dangerous in that it draws a false distinction between the free speech rights of those who can afford (or work at) a major media outlet and those who cannot.
The point is simple and unmistakable: the writers and editors of a newspaper have no more or less right to free expression than you or I.
- posted by Thomas @ 11:27 AM 0 comments
