I have to be frank.
I, like alas so many others, are such pieces of political work.
I am presented as a left leaning, liberal 'progressive' environmentalist.
I have spent much time upon promoting the issue of man made climate change, which focuses upon man made emissions of CO2, primarily from combustion for transportation and for electrical generation, exceeding the ability of our planet's vegetation to process into oxygen to maintain a sufficient atmospheric balance avoiding excessive CO2 concentrations that would raise temperatures to melt polar ice thus raiding ocean levels.
Yet the main thrust of what I have done, as with this 'liberal progressive environmentalist movement' alas has been tailored to a selfish set of elites, who are more about protecting key industries of big business and
commodities, rather than saving humanity.
Yes I have done good work, some good works. Such as promoting a few alternative technologies as solar and wind power.
But while other countries have accomplished quite much with that, to wit, Germany under Chancellor Angela Merkel, I myself have been guilty of going with the dark side of what's passes off as 'environmentalism', of guilting out people for enjoying modern lifestyles that are really quite modest compared to my own, with my multiple mansions and high flying private jet travel, emitting far more CO2 emissions, and via such travel, such emissions at high altitude furthest away from the plant vegetation that could digest it.
Yes, I own mansions, with monthly utility bills greater than the yearly bills of almost everyone that I have chastised.
And yes I fly by private jet rather than simply book flights upon jets that are going to be flown anyway and servicing way greater numbers of people thus resulting in a relatively way way less of a CO2 footprint.
Yet I recently placed my name upon a ridiculous proposal to ban automobiles in all of the world's cities, at a cost of some $90 TRILLION, which would cost considerably more than building modern underground road projects and better parking facilities, along with better bus and rail transit and pedestrian and cyclist accommodation. And to sell people the idea of living in far more cramped dwellings, while myself using private jets and limos and owing several mansions.
Well, what should anyone expect from anyone connected with the big money liberal progressive environmentalist movement? One made up of wealthy benefactors who not only use automobiles, but also small private jets and live in relative opulence, who travel to exclusive meetings generally closed to the public and not televised, to discuss ways to make the general public feel guilty over the environment?
One based way
less upon advancing newer technologies that would accommodate a modern lifestyle for greater numbers of people.
And one based way
more upon making people feel guilty about their life-style's impacts upon the environment.
One that would
save such existing big
businesses, rather than save humanity, for the
sake of a power elite that includes even those would prefer that many people simply die,
rather than admit
to new technologies that would allow a growing population a modern
lifestyle.
And one that is centricated upon the perspective of the mass of political funding from such places in the United States that fund the Democrat National Committee, namely central New York City's Central Manhattan. And thus one that is hopelessly out of touch or indifferent to the needs of much of the country.
So they do not want to constructively undermine the existing dirtier commodities and technologies by advocating cleaner alternatives.
Instead, they want to heavily stress guilt.
Make people feel guilty for having a modern lifestyle, and call restrictions that would impoverish rather than empower people
Central to this is the two pronged intelligentsia assault on people owning and using automobiles, and the heavy promotion of the dogma of no new roads, by which we mean no new express highway/grade separated freeways.
Inexpensive private automobile ownership provides an infinitely far greater choice of flexibility of choosing where to live and where to work.
Good roads support that. And the no new freeways dogma - given that most of our interstate highways were built - is all about placating the whims of the overly influential
who are obsessed with keeping much needed road links away from anywhere near their properties.
Just look at the situations with the political paralysis to construct new bridges
crossing the Potomac River within and near Washington, D.C..
Or crossing the Long Island Sound.
Or, let alone the I-95
link through Washington, D.C.. That would displace a small fraction of dwellings than that of many built let along un-built freeway segments. Yet, it would run right next to Catholic University of
America, which is next to the centrally located railroad-industrial corridor that best accommodates the freeway. And which was weirdly botched around and following the
assassination of President Kennedy, who had championed that idea.
Sure, they could do innovative designs to successfully mitigate these freeways. Cut and cover tunnel construction would re-purpose the surface area back to other uses such as new development and park-lands, while blocking traffic noise.
But it is not about reconciling public uses with the concerns of the elites.
Rather, it's the broader picture of the
mercantilist system in propping up
petroleum.
To wit, vehicular tunnels create localized hot spots of pollution at their portals, where people could get a good whiff and get a better idea of how badly we are polluting the atmosphere.
It may be said that such a facility increases pollution. But in fact it more concentrates it so we can smell it at such localized hot spots. Not building such a facility may be said to result in less vehicular traffic. But in reality it certainly only reduce it at that spot, with the traffic primarily dispersed over a larger area still existing, but just not so concentrated in such a hot spot
where it can effectively advertise the need for cleaner automobiles and cleaner fuels. And by building a highway tunnel there is the intrinsic potential of using that to capture and filter much of the emissions, rather than have it all simply go into the atmosphere.
As there are downturns in the economy that can temporarily reduce
traffic demands, particularly the manufactured gasoline shortages in
latter 1973, removing a working freeway is removing a traffic light free
route and relocating any such traffic demand onto other roads, whether
those roads are parallel freeways, traffic light surface streets or
railroads. Notably those who downplayed the significance of removing
50% of Manhattan's north-south freeway capacity with the December 15,
1973 collapse of the West Side Highway Viaduct seem to forget the
October 1973 OPEC petroleum embargo, and growing demand since upon such
routes as the parallel East River FDR Drive.
But as per the broader picture of the mercantilist order, it is all about guilting the people out, distracting them from the need and the feasibilities of emerging technologies.
You know- get the people to work against their own best interests.
That's been the mantra of the liberal progressive movement since the early 1900s.
Just look at how it got people eager to surrender their freedom of medicine and diet for the sake of far costlier and more toxic synthetic petroleum based pharmaceuticals. That was done with its unjust smearing of naturally based liquid preparations as 'nostrums' and 'quackery': a campaign by such charlatans as Harvey Wiley of the USDA and the AMA, belied by such things as the ridiculous scare campaign against soft drinks containing small amounts of cocaine and caffeine, while weirdly giving tobacco cigarettes a virtual free pass.
So "Roads" and "Cars" are perhaps the two favorite things for liberal progressives, who are primarily urban, like to bash, in addition of course to "capitalism" which serves to distract from the real problem of *crony* capitalism- aka Mercantilism.
Regarding Roads and Cars, just look at such things as the 'liberal progressive' land-use transpiration advocacy intelligentsia.
For instance, the web site
Streetsblog.
And its founder Marc Gordon.
He touts making the world in general, and cities in particular better for pedestrians and cyclists.
Fine.
But he goes beyond that, with a deep anti automobile dogma.
Not simply for improving things for pedestrians and cyclists.
But for making driving more difficult per se, with blanket statements against automobiles and particularly freeways. One apparently divorced from any quantitative or qualitative measurements as air pollution, and more based upon an elitist disdain for automobile ownership and use-age by common people.
Streetsblog will for instance cite an article from the Netherlands about how they found that design principles for higher speed roads as freeways made way less sense for surface streets in cities. Such as straighter more forgiving roads to save the lives of errant motorists with rumble strips to awaken drivers that fall asleep. Greater crash zones, etc all of which save lives. That instead city streets should be designed to slow traffic to make things safer for pedestrians and cyclists. That such urban streets should be thus designed differently than the higher speed roads. Which is reasonable.
Yet Streetsblog will cite it in a way implying that this is not so reasonable: that we should not simply design the urban streets to such principles for such laudable goals, but that we should more or less do likewise anyway, everywhere, which would include the higher speed roads, including those outside the cities.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2015/03/20/the-american-highway-safety-establishment-warms-up-some-leftovers/#more-161010
Not exactly a fount of new ideas. So it’s not surprising that the discredited “forgiving highway”
approach — the idea that design should accommodate inattentive,
reckless driving to the extent possible — permeates the report, with its
recommendations for rumble strips, “crash cushions” around objects near
roads, and the elimination of trees.
That’s not how America will get to zero deaths — it’s how we’ll keep falling behind.
So according to
Streetsblog, rumble strips, crash cushions are all bad per see?
And we get these ridiculous Bloomberg-DelBlasio no left turn and no right turn daytime prohibitions in Manhattan upon the narrow east-west streets at intersections lacking the heavy pedestrian traffic of say around MSG, simply, as per Marc Gordon's cherished dogma, to make driving more difficult, and to raise revenue.
And of course there is a generalized disdain via
Streetsblog for better energy technologies applicable to automobiles or perhaps anything in general.
http://usa.streetsblog.org/2011/01/20/highway-affiliated-pew-climate-report-favors-clean-cars-over-transit/
Many transportation reformers were disappointed last week when the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
released a report indicating that only clean car technology had a shot
at significantly reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The report dismissed
smart growth development strategies and transit as trivial contributors
to a lower-carbon economy.
Whereas affordable automobiles and modern roads give greater flexibility in dwelling and job flexibility to far greater people, and with the relatively higher cost of dwellings in denser areas, why should not
Streetsblog also be enthusiastic about cleaner automobile technology?
After all, why is it amongst the environmentalist and urban 'smart growth'
planning clique that one finds perhaps the strongest 'skeptics' of
alternative fuels, and improved battery technologies?
Or why they practically never even mention let alone
discuss the idea of breaking the petroleum monopoly via an open fuel standard.
And regarding actually making transit generally more appealing in more cost effective ways, why so little attention upon
bus stop mini stations that could also be used for van and car service, as opposed to the costlier laying of street car rail tracks?
Because mainstream liberal progressive environmentalist entities as
Streetsblog represent elitist, old moneyed interests based out of places as Manhattan. Their perspective is not only urban; it's mercantilist as well as parochial.
The last thing they want is new technologies-commodities etc to significantly displace such existing things as petroleum. Thus, as an example, see how any logical tendency of the younger generations support for ending the drug war to carry over environmental and transportation issues get stymied.
Why do you think that that 'mainstream' environmentalist movement ignores industrial Hemp?
That could address so many things.
Hemp has so much to offer the environment.
And Cannabis (Marijuana) has so much to offer. Medicinally moreso then
most people had dared imagine with its generally superior effects in
fighting cancer and other illnesses. And recreation-ally as a far
superior substance than alcohol- which the drug war is all about
protecting- along with Tobacco. We could save so much money by moving towards a more herbal based medical practice, to say nothing of the social ills of he excessive use of alcoholic beverages with a move towards recreational Cannabis, rather than hiding behind this false morality that is OK with massive persecutions of people through the police and the courts for this utterly disgraceful alcohol-tobacco market protectionism.
Yet we mainstream liberal progressives have been quite disappointing.
President Barack Obama unfortunately is really quite an embarrassment, such as with his recent comments on climate change telling people to not care about ending Cannabis prohibition. Never-mind the pathetic sight of the first African American U.S. President essentially telling us to disregard civil rights, which is what continuing support for the drug war is. Industrial Hemp offers much as a superior source of bio fuels something our big money liberal progressive environmentalist organizations are too beholden to promote. Just read Jack Herer.
And sadly, so have I. I have been too afraid to advocate industrial hemp, let alone
medicinal and recreational Cannabis, making me a 'liberal progressive'
who does not give a damn about human rights when it comes to 'drugs'.
Never-mind the enormous costs of enforcement and in human misery.
We have been disappointing in standing up for basic human rights, and in being so beholden to the big money establishment that we have effectively kept ourselves grounded.
For instance, there's tremendous potential for good with different forms of nuclear.
I don't mean so much the standard technologies around in mass since the 1950s, or even somewhat better stuff as thorium.
Rather, I mean newer technologies, particularly low temperature
nuclear fusion, with low cost, non
polluting non CO2 emitting power.
Sure solar is a good option for
stationary use, powering our buildings. But, asides for plugging in our
electric vehicles, it falls short for mobile uses where we perhaps need it the most: namely
that which emits a great amount of CO2 furthest away from the vegetation that's needed to process that into oxygen- air travel.
If you don't rely simply upon television and newspapers for
information, you stand a likelier chance of knowing about devices as the
Rossi Reactor, as well as advanced tech electric automobiles as the
Remac - with 1,000+ horsepower with a 300 mile plus battery pack- as if
incorporating something like a Rossi reactor to produce far more
electricity than customarily expected from batteries.
If I were truly serious about addressing CO2 emissions, I would be actively promoting things as Hemp biomass fuels and things as the Rossi Reactor issue rather than act as if I am too afraid to even mention such.
Likewise, as one can find by searching the internet, NASA has allocated
some funds for electromagnetic jet engines. These do not burn liquid or
gaseous fuel, nor are they some variant of a solid fuel rocket engine-
all of which share the disadvantage of having to carry so much weight in
fuel, let alone emit tons of CO2 nor far worse expellants.
That, combined with electromagnetic jet propulsion would potentially
revolutionize air - or rather flight - travel. It would not only free
existing air travel from burning all of that liquid fuel and pumping out
all of that CO2. It would also free such from having to carry all that
heavy fuel, thereby liberating such travel from the pull of our own
gravity, with single stage to orbit and beyond craft! Yes, because fuel
weight would no longer be a major issue, we would not even need to have
so many different types of space ships, instead using a winged vehicle
conceivably for an entire trip- though with added thrust vectors for
landing and taking off in reduced or non atmospheric destinations.
Yet instead we hide behind reactionary sloganeering.
Such as the no nukes dogma, with such sad things as the U.S. Green Party
rejecting motions to support such low temperature, infinitely cleaner
nuclear technologies.
Or the anti automobile -- anti car - crapola, while I own how many automobiles myself and perhaps never take transit, with flying done in small private jets.
And we pretend that the drug war is some sort of sanctified holy war by
daring not advocate Hemp-Cannabis, let alone address the drug war for
its broader purpose of controlling the use of medicine for the sake of
bloated AMA clientèle profits, despite all of the lip service to
addressing our health care cost crisis. Why such such organizations as the AMA continue to get over upon the general public?
Why?
Because of the big money behind much of the environmentalist
movement is largely about protecting existing commodities- placing that
ultimately above accommodating a growing population. You've heard about
zero population growth.
You have heard about Malthusianism.
But have you heard about crony capitalism- aka Mercantilism?
New technologies as low temperature nuclear fusion would liberate humanity from expensive fuel costs year in and year out.
Adopting such technology to air transportation may provide the greatest benefit in net CO2 emission reductions given that such occur at high altitudes the furtherest away from the vegetation that can digest such.
But what's passed off as liberal progressivism is anything but being designed to con people into supporting the interests of the power elite against themselves.
That's why the Left is so obsessed with opposing 'capitalism' without any adjective-modifier, which is
simply having an economy.
After all, the term capitalism implies
capital, aka money means not having to rely upon barter and has a
definition of making a profit- which in of itself means sustainability,
as profit is hardly intrinsically bad, rather its grossly excessive
profits, such as that seen in the medical industry.
And that's why we get all these 'liberal progressives' as actually salivate at higher fuel taxes and higher taxes in general while actually neglecting what a fraction of such revenues should deliver.
Why do you think there is so little cry about the excessive local property taxes as ts supposed to fund eduction. 'Liberal progressives are way to much into measuring success by the height if the tax rather than the actually accomplishments with the money.
Note that perhaps none of the people that publicly espouse this liberal progressive environmentalism walk the talk.
I decry having a large CO2 footprint.
Yet I own several huge mansions.
When I travel, its by executive jet so I don't have to mingle with ordinary people.
Why? Its because I like it. As do the others participating in such liberal progressive environmentalist politics.
Yet we fail to come out and support newer alternative technologies and commodities.
Instead, we tell OTHERS that THEY should feel guilty.
We bow to those elitists that would rather see much of the world's population go away,
rather than threaten the existing mercantilist order with new
technologies that could allow a growing population to be accommodated in
a far more environmentally friendly way.
And we all promote this via dependence upon people throwing their votes away via mindless party loyalty.
Just look at New York, particularly N.Y.C. which re-elected Andrew Cuomo as its Governor.
Or Democrats who to this day support electing Hillary Clinton as President of the United States in 2016- with a recent poll indicating an 86% of support amongst those registered as Democrats!
Just look at how the elites betray the masses.
N.Y. has a pressing need for additional capacity for crossing the Hudson River. It has not built any new road capacity since adding the lower deck to the George Washington Bridge n 1962, which followed the opening of the 3rd tube to the Lincoln Tunnel in 1957 and the original Tappan Zee Bridge in the 1950s.
And it is even worse with railroad capacity with a set of century old passenger rail tunnels that will need major overhaul if not outright replacing, and get this, no freight rail crossings whatsover until one goes 140 miles to the north to Sedkirk, just outside Albany alongside I-90.
So there has been this planning effort for a single track freight railroad beneath New York Harbor directly connecting New Jersey and Brooklyn, that is projected to cost over $7 billion. It's a pet project of Congressman Jerry Nadler.
Yet check this out.
The Tappan Zee Bridge is currently being replaced, after a planning process that lasted some years.
It was being considered with the framework for a lower roadway deck.
Such was to provide space for adding a new passenger rail line as part of the Metro North system, originally from Sufferen, N.Y. to Port Chester N.Y., and later cut back to White Plains and then Tarrytown, yet still crossing the Hudson River.
Of particular and extra importance here was the space potential for adding a second rail component- freight.
Freight cars could have fit within the lower deck. And double stacked freight cars could have fit in the median space, as this project is for a set of twin spans.
The lower deck option would have added about $200 million to this $3 billion or so project.
There are already the existing rail lines on either side of the Hudson. And the gradients of the proposed designs were entirely acceptable to the west, and off by only 1/10th of the 1% required grade to the east with the looped tunnels they drew up to make the grade change given the bluff. A slightly longer loop tunnel would have bright this within the required gradients to connect these rail lines for freight, thus freight trains would only have to go 27 rather than 140 miles in each direction out of their way to bring goods into New York City and Long Island- the latter which has no crossings whatsoever east of the Throgs Neck Bridge. So perhaps for $250 million they could have had a bridge project design that could provide our new trans Hudson rail fright crossing for a fraction of the $7 billion Jerry Nadler single track rail freight tunnel.
The Tappan Zee Bridge replacement apparently never addressed the rail freight issue but at least had a good cost effective design providing great flexibility.
That is until sometime in 2012.
Though they had a pair of good designs, each shown with a single and a double deck version, all of this would be scrapped in favor or a different design practice. That would show about 6 different bridge design, ALL with only the single deck. Obviously, SOMEONE made a decision to scrap the lower deck. And of these new designs, they could not have picked a WORSE option. It features these ridiculous outward canted chopstick towers. Not only do they make a mockery, given that overlooking this bridge's site to the northeast is the site of a long closed GM automobile factory that lost market share to Japan where such are utensils for eating. The outward canting of the towers impedes upon the vertical space in the median space between the new twin spans thus impinging upon the vertical clearance necessary for accommodating double stacked rail cars. Go figure!
Now with Andrew Cuomo at the helm, how did this happen?
Well though you would not have known it from attending some of the public meetings on the planning for the project, there was an organized yet not necessarily widely reported upon protest movement against the lower deck. Not necessarily one with much popular support. But one alas with the politically sufficient heavyweight of the politically connected television personality: Rosie O'Donnell.
She had purchased and had restored a mansion in Nyack, N.Y. on the west side of the Hudson River a few years earlier. It was not one of those houses within a few hundred feet of the bridge, but rather about 2 miles to the north. Word is that she objected to the slight increase in the replacement bridge's profile with the lower deck, and lobbied Cuomo to have it scrapped. They do know each other, as Cuomo attended the marriage of her brother, who is a N.Y. State Assemblyman, that was held in early 2012. It was shortly afterwards that the lower deck option was scrapped. And this was done without any public explanation. And with a project EIS that would fail to include a discussion of he cost effectiveness of the lower deck.
No word if the outward canted chopstick towers were likewise Rosie O'Donnel's selection, who has since sold that mansion.
Yet way to many people support this sort of politician. Including myself, as I issued the following statement about his dad, Mario Cuomo:
Mario Cuomo's passion for justice, decency and fairness gave him an
unparalleled eloquence that stirred America deeply. His leadership,
authenticity and powerful advocacy reflected the strength of his
character and his unshakable commitment to the most vulnerable and to
those who most needed policies and principles that reflect the best of
America. He was shaped by his immigrant family's love for our nation and
gratitude for the opportunities it gave them to work hard and build a
bright future, and he in turn took great pride in the wonderful family
that he and his beloved Matilda raised and shaped. We have lost a rare
and truly great leader.
Note that this sort of leader had bragged about building more new prisons in the State of New York then any other of its Governors in history.
But such was the result, to no small degree, of the 'liberal progressive' environmentalists in New York.
Remember Westway?
That was to have been a project to construct a replacement West Side Highway along the Manhattan Hudson River waterfront, replacing an obsolete original elevated designed during the 1920s that was woefully deficient in geometry and by 1973 was falling apart.
Westway was to be a modern interstate grade freeway, with its northern part a viaduct and its portion to the south of 29th Street within a box tunnel buried within new landfill supporting an extension of the existing street grid one block westwards with new mixed use development and parkland, furthering a historical process of extending Manhattan outward, displacing what had been piers for Manhattan's shrinking landing area for boats indeed the pier at the southern end of the project was where Titanic was scheduled to dock.
Although Westway was to replace an existing established freeway, did not even include extra continuous travel lanes (even though it could have very easily been designed with such without displacing people's dwellings), it came under a vicious attack by these 'liberal progressive environmentalists' under allegations of being an air pollution hazard, as if such vehicular traffic would pollute less if instead upon a stop and go traffic light intersection 12th Avenue, and upon parallel such roads. They would loose this argument in Court. And the real reason behind that was the increased pollution at the 'hot-spots' at the tunnel portals, which is the real reason for the 'liberal progressive environmentalist opposition to urban road tunnels. They don't want so much to reduce air pollution but rather its perception, as such tunnel portal hot-spots would be an excellent reminder of the need to significantly further reduce automobile pollution via cleaner propulsion, particularly electrics and cleaner fuels aka an open fuel standard. So instead they prefer that the pollution is a bit more dispersed such is the essence of the big money liberal progressive environmentalist movement- particularly one prone to 'thinking' in lock-setp.
So once they lost the supposed 'clean air' argument, they seized upon the supposed striped bass issue, as there were these fish that had a habit of spawning within the scheduled landfill area, with such a concentration artificially induced by a sewer outlet! Thus, the next law suit against the project argued something like that it presented an unacceptable impact upon these fish, and this fish hatchery.
Now there are plenty of ways they could have dealt with this.
Perhaps divert the sewer outlet.
Provide a substitute hatchery. They have already had programs of dumping retired subway cars into water bodies to provide such sanctuary for fish.
They could have even modified the Westway design, perhaps with something built out at the edge of the newly extended waterfront, and/or even maintained a break in the landfill at the edge of the existing waterfront bulkhead essentially making Westway not a pure extension of Manhattan but rather a peninsula or immediately adjacent island.
But if any such ideas were ever presented, the public never heard them in the din of the onslaught of lock-step journalism as that seen almost weekly in such media organs as, most notoriously The Village Voice.
That was because the 'liberal progressive environmentalist' community had already locked itself into the idea of outright canceling the Westway project in order to abscond with its construction funds via a transfer of such funds to N.Y. City's mass transit bureaus - a move that by the very admission of such Westway opponents as the organization
Transportation Alternatives yielded a fraction of the total monies that they were able to have provided for transit not involving canceling any highway projects. Of course canceling Westway to provide some extra money for mass transit made even less sense when one notes that only 5% of the tolls upon the vehicular crossings- bridges and tunnels- goes towards highway maintenance, and the rest, 95% is diverted to transit.
But this make perfect sense to many Manhattanites who do not own vehicles, don't drive, and who give little or no thought to those that do, including the truck drivers that bring their goods, making life for so many people on that slender island that produces about none of its own food. Westway, replacing an existing antiquated freeway with a modern one particularly in a tunnel to give the waterfront back to pedestrians and cyclists was supposedly a great waste of money to these types. And such was an opinion that conveniently forgot to consider the value of the extra land, including what would have been the additional perpetual property tax revenues.
Yet they were apparently OK with spending greater and greater sums of money upon building more prisons and upon more police and court overtime for prosecuting the war on drugs as there was hardly any outcry over any of that in NYC remotely comparable to that against Westway.
This was not only with Democrats as then Governor Mario Cuomo, who at least had once supported Westway, but worse so with the 'liberal progressives' as Bella Abzug, and also with Cuomo's initial 1982 Republican Gubernatorial challenger, Lew Lerhman who campaigned against Westway as a supposed waste of money, yet supported the official inquisition of people who sought alternatives to alcohol, Tobacco and caffeine..
The 'liberal progressive environmentalists' and 'fiscal conservatives' made sure that Westway's $3 billion or so was spent elsewhere.
Subsequently, Mario Cuomo spent - on constructing new prisons, largely in response to the drug war alcohol Tobacco market protection racket hysteria over a University of Maryland student/Boston Celtics draftee Len Bias accidentally killing himself in June 1986 by drinking a gram of cocaine powder. Indeed, some of the Westway funds actually were subsequently transferred for police overtime for the war on drugs. Yet where were the liberal progressive and fiscal conservatives on that?
Meanwhile, while Westway's demise was celebrated for the $3 billion or so of its funds absconded for questionably audited transit agencies and the drug war, planning continues upon a $7 billion single track freight rail tunnel while New Yorkers remain oblivious to how a 2nd Governor Cuomo would SQUANDER a significantly less costly alternative for accommodating a Hudson River rail freight crossing upon a replacement Tappan Zee Bridge project.
With the Village Voice having been so obsessed with stopping Westway as a supposed waste of money, and with that paper being so fixated upon homosexual people, why does not that paper - or indeed any paper write an expose upon what Rosie O' Donnel got away with, getting over upon an entire region over her interpretation of 'the View'?
Indeed, given that she had Cuomo kill Tappan Zee rail freight, thus costing extra billions simply because she objected to the slightly greater bridge road-deck profile from her mansion some 2 miles to the north, why has not she ever used her national soapbox to make her case on that appropriately named television show of hers, 'the View'?
Because she really had no case.
Just like those wealthy creeps in Rye, N.Y. and northern Long Island who weer dead set against developer Michel Polimeni's proposal for bringing I-287 to the Route 135 freeway by a deep drilled tunnel.
Back in 1973, N.Y. then Governor Rockefellor capitulated to these type by canceling the long planned for Rye to Oyster Bay Bridge, leaving Long Island without any fixed connections to the mainland east of the Throggs Neck Bridge. This is clearly an intolerable situation that wastes lots of fuel and time. Especially after 911 with all of the lip service over evacuation route capacity.
So Polimeni and others figure that if they were going to object to the surface disruption for a surface highway approach and bridge crossing, than make it a tunnel out of sight and conceivably out of mind. It would be a deep drilled tunnel, and the approach north of the existing Route 135 terminus would be cut and cover providing new parkland facilities and the like. They announce this proposal in late 2007.
But then later, nothing.
And we have this weird sex scandal with this orchestrated newspaper campaign the following spring to force N.Y.'s Governor Eliot Spitzer to resign for being busted as "Client #9" at a prostitution business called "Emperors' Club" - clearly an establishment catering to the famous - yet we never hear about Clients #1-8 or 10 and higher. The story was revealed March 10, 2008, and he resigns 7 days later.
And sure enough, a Long Island newspaper writes
a story re-posted
here, suggesting that this scandal may have been a political move to stop the tunnel, which Spitzer was reportedly set to come out to publicly support; all of which gets derailed by this scandal. And New Yorkers would hear almost nothing about the Cross Sound Tunnel proposal since.
So is it any wonder that so many meetings of liberal progressive elites where the decisions are made are neither open to the public, nor televised
Instead the idea is to keep the public ignorant, filling the media with junk as day time soap operas and evening 'news' regarding celebrity entertainment. Jheez! Just look at the crap programing, even today with hundreds and hundreds of channels on cable television.
So is it any surprise that people in New York would re-elect someone as Andrew Cuomo, who sells out the public interest, depriving millions of people a more cost effective rail freight crossing, for the whims of a celerity?!
And alas, I am partially to blame!
Just look at that
television network that had actually owned:
Current TV!
There I had the
opportunity to educate the public.
And I blew it.
I even had ex N.Y. Governor Eliot Spitzer with a show that never discussed if even dared mention whatever happened to the Cross Sound Tunnel, let along Tappan Zee Rail.
Instead that show simply blathered about nothing.
And I subsequently sold
Current TV to
Al Jazeera, and it is now no more.
So why would I do that? Why would I have a television network with national distribution and fail to use it constructively for educating people?
I could have used
Current TV to inform people.
Such as about the need for a political new reformation.
One featuring a true environmentalist movement willing to stand up for our planet and our lifestyle all for the general masses rather than these mercantilist malthusians.
One that supports alternative fuels.
One that supports better forms of nuclear power.
One that supports better roads, including that with innovative mitigation design as seen for instance with Madrid Spain's M30 Tunnel project.
One that opposes the drug war and is pro choice in matters of medicine.
Yet instead I squandered the opportunity.
So what does that say about me?
Well, it involves the club that I joined in order to get ahead.
The
club that I joined because I wanted to be the President of the United
States. And I was elected in 2000 receiving the greater popular vote.
But I had it yanked away from me.
So instead we got a second President
Bush.
And perhaps we'll get a second President Clinton, who has been working at pretending to serve the general pubic while actually serving the elites, such as with her meetings with the major pharmaceutical and insurance industry for her Hillarycare initiative that should have been televised but were not.
Though that would be denied to her in 2008, with the unusual ascendancy of a 1st term U.S. Senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, who apparently knew a successful move to make upon the political careerist chessboard to get selected to be elected. And who now is working to deny her the top spot for 2016 when he can't be re-elected. So there's something going on behind the scenes, perhaps with Elizabeth Warren seen as a more reliable tool for the power-broker elites.
And here I am today.
I have surrendered any hope for becoming a U.S. President.
Instead, I have accepted the job as a spokesman for promoting the idea of an urgency to reduce man made CO2 emissions.
Yet I fall right into the rut of promoting the agenda of the primarily urban wealthy liberal progressive elites.
Of guilting out the general public for having lifestyles far more modest than people as myself.
While ignoring emerging new technologies that would cleanly support a growing population yet undercut the very technologies and commodities that such an elite rely upon for maintaining their vast wealth.
Having squandered my opportunity to better educate the public about emerging new technologies through Current TV, I ought to take some of my millions of dollars and start a series of initiatives to showcase such technologies, in order too break the media black out information suppression of such.
One would be building a new house that is powered solely by solar and reactor technology, whether low temperature nuclear fusion, water splitting - made far more practical by using the proper radio frequencies to reduce the power requirements -- or something else in order to produce electricity and be thus self sufficent.
Another would be hosting automobile events, such as races, for autos featuring such new technologies. Think of the Tesla. Now with a 691 hp all wheel drive version. Or even better yet the 1,088 hp Remac, with a 300 mile plus range off a suspiciously small battery pack that appears like some new tech device- perhaps a Rossi Reactor. Imagine such powerful electric automobiles that are not even hybrids as those by Tesla and Remac with even greater range because they contain a "battery" that is actually something as a Rossi Reactor low temeprature nuclear fusion device producing oggles of electricity for oggles of horsepower safely and cheaply. With that we can completely bypass the idea of Thorium and start retiring our existing nuclear fission, and other electric power plants.
Another would be hosting automobile events for retrofitting existing combustion engined vehicle for burning different alternative fuels.
And why not other types of vehicles as well, such as boats!
Imagine the USS United States now mothballed in Philadelpia, retrofitted with newer technologies.
Let's change the IRA laws to allow people to get at such money without paying the tax if they spend it upon restoration/renovation projects such as these.
That will create decent paying jobs in the chasm between manufacturing and low level service job and be actually valuable to actually reducing unemployment, instead of simply juggling the figures as both the Ds and Rs like to do.
And for where its grossly needed, given the further proximity from CO2 eating vegetation- aircraft.
Let's have a program to ultimately replace combustion engined aircraft with those with electromagnetic propulsion, with the electric power provided by our new low temperature nuclear fusion reactors.
And since that eliminates the need for carrying bulky amounts of fuel, apply such technologies to space planes.
Lets likewise have an initiative to reintroduce science into our education curriculum, along with civics and home repair. Let's teach our successive generations about the importance of knowing more about the physical and political world, for creating a better world.
Alas, that would be opposed by the overly influential Manhattan Central Park DNC funder elitists, who would rather keep the general public dumbed down. That's why we have all of this 'liberal progressive' denial of suppressed technologies and support for zero population growth or even population reduction- they actually favor their existing technologies and commodities over humanity.
That's their driving philosophy!
