En Tequila Es Verdad/progressive conservatism/post/2009/01/31/0800

January 31, 2009 8:00 AM - Woozle
Woozle said... Other Issues thread (At Last, The 1948 Show!):Re Australian link: that was a comparison of light rail vs. heavy rail for passenger usage. We were talking passengers vs. freight.Re your blog post: Some intelligent investment in rail infrastructure could certainly go a long way. This doesn't preclude investment in light rail as well; the question is not which one to put all the money into, but how much to put into each in order to get the best "bang for the buck" -- or, better yet, what specific projects have been proposed, how much they each cost, and what they each are projected to do for the economy.In other words, we're not debating whether or not to spend money on heavy rail -- I agree that we should -- but whether or not commuter rail (I don't care much if it's light or heavy; whatever works best) also deserves considerable investment.Where did your "$1.3 trillion" figure come from? The earlier blog entry you link to is a 404.The article you quote which cites Obama as being in opposition to a particular plan to help unsnarl freight lines in Chicago doesn't explain why he opposes it (maybe he supports a better one?) or even how the plan is supposed to help."It seems that Clinton saw war (and make no mistake &#8211; lopsided actions like Bosnia and air-bombing Iraq were still wars) as a useful tool for getting another party to comply with your goals."</I>And that's the primary benefit you think we got from those actions? You think we shouldn't have taken them?"I would call that &#8216;pro-war&#8217; even if it seems less so in comparison with Bush&#8217;s attitude."</I>That sounds to me more like conservative bloody-mindedness than like a reasonable assessment. Are surgeons "pro-blood" and "pro-pain"?On to the abortion thread... permalink