Critical Mass - Cool Idea But Lousy Execution

Critical Mass is a group that organizes a large bicycle rides to assert bicycle riders rights to use the roads. In theory this is a great idea but in practice I think it does little but inspire irritation and hatred for bicycle riders in general. Today in Seattle, it even sparked an avoidable incident.

For years, bicyclists involved with Critical Mass have gathered monthly to ride through Seattle streets in a show of support for the rights of bicyclists. For the most part, Seattle police have taken a hands-off approach to the riders, although the protest tactics include filling the streets with bikes, putting a stop to vehicular traffic.

The riders were employing such a tactic just as the motorist and his companion were about to drive off, Jamieson said.

"The bicyclists were using both sides of the roadway, effectively blocking traffic," he said.

An altercation with the driver ensued and some of those on bikes began sitting on his car and hitting the vehicle, Jamieson said.

The driver tried to back up, he said, and struck a bike.

Bicyclists began attacking the vehicle.

"They broke his windshield and they broke the rear window and did some additional body damage," Jamieson said.

The article doesn't say the bicycle rider that was backed into was seriously hurt so I imagine it was just scrapes and bruises. The surrounding bicyclists could have done the responsible thing and written down the license plate number of the car, help their fellow bicyclist and maybe even block the car in so he couldn't leave until they could get Seattle PD to come. Instead, they decided to become a mob and assault the driver and damage his car.

The driver needs to be held accountable for his actions but the militant bike riders should also be held accountable for theirs. This is the kind of incident that damages the reputation of Critical Mass and the cause they are fighting for. It's similar to the eco-terrorists (I do hate that term) that do more harm than good for environmentalist causes.

$750,000 Buys a LOT of Arugula, Even at Whole Foods

CNN's Hardball, without Chris Matthews had a fascinating segment last Friday on whether Barak Obama is too cool. The segment was basically a rehash of whether Obama is too "elitist" to understand what its like to be an average American. I suppose this may be a legitimate question. Everybody wants a president that is in touch with the day to day problems that we encounter: the price of food, increasing gas prices and the like. However, instead of having a real discussion of the topic the one of the Hardball panel members, Margaret Carlson, tries to make the point that both candidates wives are out of touch citing Cindy McCain's one month $750,000 credit card bill and the fact that Michelle Obama mentioned shopping at Whole Foods for arugula and how hard it is to get fresh fruit. (h/t Crooks & Liars) She says this seemingly very seriously and without irony. Her fellow panel members don't protest her comparison they just kind of snicker in the background when she says "arugula."

Now let me get this straight. Michelle Obama worries about high food prices when she shops at Whole Foods for arugula and fresh fruit and this makes her as elitist and out of touch as Cindy McCain who runs up a $750,000 credit card bill in a month? You have got to be kidding me!

Look, I don't buy arugula, but I do shop at Whole Foods for organic fruits and vegetables when I can afford it. Whole Foods is expensive but spending $5.00 a pound for lettuce or whatever doesn't make you an elitist it makes you someone who likes a kick ass fresh salad. Practically everyone goes food shopping and worries about prices but when was the last time you had a $750,000 credit card bill?

I hate the word 'elitist" but if you are going to apply it to one person in this scenario it sure as hell isn't going to be Michelle Obama. This is one of many examples of the media trying to make a controversy or create a story where one doesn't exist. It's really sad that they spend their time on this type of thing instead of comparing what the candidates are saying or doing.

Prison Ships and Prison Hulks the Irony Isn't Lost

According to the Guardian the U.S. military has apparently been holding terror suspects on prison ships to keep the suspects away from prying eyes:

The United States is operating "floating prisons" to house those arrested in its war on terror, according to human rights lawyers, who claim there has been an attempt to conceal the numbers and whereabouts of detainees.

This is more than a bit ironic since the historic basis of our country treating prisoner of war decently started with George Washington who was appalled at the treatment of American POWs including being held in prison hulks

The Bush Administration has this uncanny ability to tear apart the very foundations that has made the United States an example of democracy and a force for good to much of the world. It almost seems like they are doing in on purpose.

Eco-terrorism

An article/opinion piece in the latest Eat the State reminded me of a fairly recent (March 4) incident where a housing development of large (4200 sqf.) homes in Woodinville, WA was burned down. A banner with an environmental slogan against the homes signed with the letters ELF was found at the arson site. Authorities assume that this indicated that the Earth Liberation Front was responsible for setting the fires. As far as I know ELF has never taken responsibility for this arson nor has any other proof been found to link them but that is a story for another day.

I don't agree with eco-terrorism or so called anarchists that think by damaging, destroying or threatening they can "fix" the world (for whatever values of fixed they use.) Although this kind of action can bring attention to their cause I think in the end it turns public opinion against their cause. Now, either the people who commit these acts don't agree with me or they just don't care. They are selfishly making their point to the detriment of those that are trying to work within the system to solve the same problems like Global Climate Change, the unfair practices of the WTO or suburban sprawl like in the Woodinville arson.

The article in Eat the State accused all of us "Mommies and Daddies" of not giving a fuck because we are all evil baddies that worship materialism and don't care about ruining the planet. The author, Jason Miller, goes on to praise ELF for burning down the homes in Woodinville because they represented a "rape" of the planet. Now, I'm not a big fan of huge mansions or housing developments built on land that may be ecologically sensitive, but I think in this case the bigger "rape" of the planet was the damage to the environment done by the fire, the effort to put out the fire and the fact that the builder could just take their insurance money and rebuild the homes thus using twice the materials originally needed. Even worse, in some ways, this incident gives the conservatives a chance to paint all environmentalists as eco-terrorists. 

I'm not so naive as to think that protests and civil disobedience aren't necessary tools of chance but I think the positive impact that they generate are based on the willingness of people to PEACEFULLY disagree en mass and be willing to pay the price; by which I mean jail time or fines not police violence. The average American respects someone willing to stand up for what they believe in even if they disagree with their cause. They don't respect violence or property damage because they will empathize with those who have been victimized rather than the perpetrators.

Neville Chamberlain

What did you think of when you saw the post title: Neville Chamberlain? What if I through in the word "appeasement?"

Why am I asking? Well first some background. Apparently President Bush is attempting to slap Barack Obama (not explicitly mentioning his name mind you) with the label of appeaser based on Obama's desire to talk with Hamas to help make some settlement to bring peace between the Palestinians and Israel. He even made a comparison between Obama and Neville Chamberlain appeasing Hitler. You can check out the video here (via Crooks and Liars) along with some commentary from MSNBC talking heads.

So back to the question. I asked it because a GOP operative trotted out the Republican talking points of calling Obama an appeaser like Chamberlain on Hardball with Chris Matthews. Now, I'm not a Chris Matthews fan but I was impressed when he asked the guy what Chamberlain did that made him an appeaser. The GOP operative was of course clueless because they didn't include that information in his talking points for the day.

I was enjoying the roasting of the GOPer when I thought to myself what DID Chamberlain do exactly to get the label of appeaser. I wracked my brain for a second and then I thought "I think it was let Hitler get away with invading Czechoslovakia with out any consequences." Well I was at least very close. Then I wondered how many Americans could really come up with the guess I did and would just say "Yeah appeaser." with no thought to what it really meant.

Chamberlain was an appeaser because he allowed Hitler to take and take with no repercussions. Negotiating with an opponent is obviously NOT appeasement. It is a way to solve problems as Bush well knows (cough) North Korea (cough) Axis of Evil (cough). Sometimes the hypocrisy of the Bush administration drives me crazy.

Actually Republicans DO Have Horns Growing Out Of Their Heads They Just File Them Down

or Overheard At The Coffee Shop

I like to write at coffee shops. Getting out of the house or the office helps me focus on my writing instead of the television, chores that need to be done or other distractions.

Coffee shops can also provide a good source of material for rants, blog posts, fiction and articles. Today, for example I was sitting at Zeitgeist in Pioneer Square just drinking my latte (no I don't wear Birkenstocks) and doing a little bit of writing when three guys sat down at the next table and started talking a bit too loudly. I was doing a pretty good job of ignoring them until one of them said...

"...a Republican and you don't have horns growing out of your head."

That got me thinking, and you know what... Republicans DO have horns growing out of their head most of them just file them down. For example:

FOX News: Files their horns down with "Fair and Balanced"
Bill O'Reilly: "No Spin Zone"
John McCain: "Straight Talk Express"
George W. Bush: Good ol' boy, man of the pepple, werkin' at his ranch
Dick Cheney: ...wait you can actually SEE his horns if you squint just right.

My point is that Republicans get upset when people see them as evil bastards but they don't do anything to disavow themselves of the elements of their party that are either pretty damn evil or are evil enablers; you know "the guy who runs in to the convenience store to get Satan a pack of cigarettes."

Paper, Plastic or Neither

The mayor of Seattle and the city council president recently announced a plan to impose a 20-cent-per-bag "green fee" tax on paper and plastic bags distributed at grocery, convenience and drug stores. This tax is supposed to be an effort reduce garbage and encourage people to use reusable cloth bags when they do their shopping. The revenue from the tax is supposed to go to "to administer and enforce the rules, to buy and promote reusable bags, and to expand recycling, environmental education and waste prevention programs."

I am very much in favor of people using cloth bags to do their shopping. I also feel a tax or fee is a good way to encourage the uses of cloth or other reusable bags as long as the revenue is REALLY used for environmental programs. I am concerned that the revenue will just get siphoned off into the general fund and the program will just turn into a revenue generator like 2 MPH over the speed limit speeding tickets and picking one guy out of a crowd jay walking tickets. Just call me paranoid I guess.