Usually when proponents of light rail wax poetically about the wonders of that mode of publicly subsidized transit they tell stories of the wonders of such systems in Europe or mention the urban hipness of the light rail utopia that is Portland. I don’t ever recall hearing anything from these folks about how great light rail had worked out in Buffalo. In fact, before I read Steven Malanga’s piece in Saturdays’ WSJ, I was not aware that the city in upstate New York even had such an enlightened transit system.
How Stimulus Spending Ruined Buffalo:
Sometimes these schemes have done real harm. In the 1970s, the federal government decided to invest $530 million to build a 6.2-mile light-rail system through downtown Buffalo. It was supposed to further spur redevelopment, of course.
Opened in 1985 and anchored by a transit mall that banned cars, the rail line fell well below ridership projections—and downtown businesses suffered mightily from the lack of traffic. As Buffalo landlord Stephen P. Fitzmaurice wrote in 2009: "Walk down Main Street on the transit mall; aside from a few necessities like drug and cell phone stores, blight dominates." Last month the city received a $15 million federal grant to restore traffic to Main Street.
So first the taxpayers shelled out over five-hundred-million dollars in the 1970s—when half a billion bucks was still real money—to build light rail and create a “transit mall” in Buffalo and now we’re on the hook for another $15 million to untransit the same street in an attempt to save whatever shred of downtown business that remains? Sounds like a great deal. And one that we should keep in mind as more light rail projects are being pitched with the promise of economic redevelopment.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Saturday, January 14, 2012
Taking What They're Giving
Fearless playoff football prognistications offered without commentary:
Saints 24
49ers 16
Patriots 34
Broncos 20
Ravens 15
Texans 13
Packers 41
Giants 26
Okay, maybe they're not all that fearless as I'm picking all the favorites, but this seems like one of those playoff weekends when the better teams will win and usually cover. If I were a betting man, the huge spread for the Pats would make me nervous with late game garbage scoring and whatnot, but I'd definitely take the Texans and the points they're giving.
I see my picks aren't all that different from what Brad Carlson is going with. Not sure if that's a good or bad sign at this point. However, the fact that the Nihilist In Golf Pants diverges from me in two of his three picks does give me some reason for confidence.
Saints 24
49ers 16
Patriots 34
Broncos 20
Ravens 15
Texans 13
Packers 41
Giants 26
Okay, maybe they're not all that fearless as I'm picking all the favorites, but this seems like one of those playoff weekends when the better teams will win and usually cover. If I were a betting man, the huge spread for the Pats would make me nervous with late game garbage scoring and whatnot, but I'd definitely take the Texans and the points they're giving.
I see my picks aren't all that different from what Brad Carlson is going with. Not sure if that's a good or bad sign at this point. However, the fact that the Nihilist In Golf Pants diverges from me in two of his three picks does give me some reason for confidence.
Ringmaster Without a Whip
Good editorial in today's WSJ on the laughability of President Obama now trying to portray himself as a government reformer after three years of almost unfettered expansion at the federal level. The Reorganization Man:
Another way of putting it is that this new emphasis on streamlining the bureaucracy is Mr. Obama's version of the Texas Governor's "Oops." Having presided over the largest expansion of government since LBJ—health care, financial reregulation, spending 24% of GDP, the surge of industrial policy—Mr. Obama's pollsters must be saying that voters have the jimmy-legs about bigger government and that he thus can't run only as a Great Society man.
But let's go to the videotape. One measure of government size is the federal work force, measured by the White House budget office as civilian full-time equivalent employees, excluding the military and Post Office. The executive branch had about 1.875 million workers in 2008 when the financial crisis hit, a number that held relatively constant throughout the post-9/11 Bush Administration. That number climbed to 2.128 million two years later under the 111th Congress—or growth of 13.5%. That's the largest government since 1992, when the Clinton Administration began to slash defense spending.
After three years of feeding the beast, I find it hard to believe that voters will but into the notion that President Obama is now the one who will tame it.
Another way of putting it is that this new emphasis on streamlining the bureaucracy is Mr. Obama's version of the Texas Governor's "Oops." Having presided over the largest expansion of government since LBJ—health care, financial reregulation, spending 24% of GDP, the surge of industrial policy—Mr. Obama's pollsters must be saying that voters have the jimmy-legs about bigger government and that he thus can't run only as a Great Society man.
But let's go to the videotape. One measure of government size is the federal work force, measured by the White House budget office as civilian full-time equivalent employees, excluding the military and Post Office. The executive branch had about 1.875 million workers in 2008 when the financial crisis hit, a number that held relatively constant throughout the post-9/11 Bush Administration. That number climbed to 2.128 million two years later under the 111th Congress—or growth of 13.5%. That's the largest government since 1992, when the Clinton Administration began to slash defense spending.
After three years of feeding the beast, I find it hard to believe that voters will but into the notion that President Obama is now the one who will tame it.
Friday, January 13, 2012
Beer of the Week (Vol. CXXX)
Another edition of Beer of the Week sponsored as always by the warm-hearted folks at Glen Lake Wine & Spirits who can help you find the wine, whiskey, and beer you need for any season.
Now that we’ve finally gotten a taste of real winter around here it’s only fitting that we should continue with beers best suited for the cold days and long nights. This week’s selection comes all the way from New York City. It’s Brooklyn Winter Ale:
When the days grow short and the beach recedes into our dreams, we need a very nice beer to get us through the long winter. Based on the satisfying malty ales of blustery Scotland, Brooklyn Winter Ale will have you looking on the bright side of things. Rich Scottish malts bring deep bready flavors to a beer with a full copper color, a round, smooth palate, and brisk hopping that pulls the sweet malts into balance. See - things are looking up already!
12oz brown bottle. Standard Brooklyn label design with seasonal colors of icy silver and blue.
STYLE: Winter Ale
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 6.1%
COLOR (0-2): Copper brown, mostly clear. 2
AROMA (0-2): Sweet malts with a little yeast. 2
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color, thick with good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted malt with lighter hops and some peaty flavors. Not picking up too much else. Crisp, dry finish. Smooth mouthfeel with a medium body. Pretty drinkable. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Malty flavors carry through. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Brooklyn’s winter offering follows the fairly common model of a Scottish Ale, but doesn’t have the heartier flavors or heat that are often associated with such warmers. Yet I still found it to be a pretty good beer for a cold winter day. And definitely one that you go to when you hankering to put down more than one. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 14
Now that we’ve finally gotten a taste of real winter around here it’s only fitting that we should continue with beers best suited for the cold days and long nights. This week’s selection comes all the way from New York City. It’s Brooklyn Winter Ale:
When the days grow short and the beach recedes into our dreams, we need a very nice beer to get us through the long winter. Based on the satisfying malty ales of blustery Scotland, Brooklyn Winter Ale will have you looking on the bright side of things. Rich Scottish malts bring deep bready flavors to a beer with a full copper color, a round, smooth palate, and brisk hopping that pulls the sweet malts into balance. See - things are looking up already!
12oz brown bottle. Standard Brooklyn label design with seasonal colors of icy silver and blue.
ALCOHOL BY VOLUME: 6.1%
COLOR (0-2): Copper brown, mostly clear. 2
AROMA (0-2): Sweet malts with a little yeast. 2
HEAD (0-2): Off-white color, thick with good volume and lacing. 2
TASTE (0-5): Roasted malt with lighter hops and some peaty flavors. Not picking up too much else. Crisp, dry finish. Smooth mouthfeel with a medium body. Pretty drinkable. 3
AFTERTASTE (0-2): Malty flavors carry through. 2
OVERALL (0-6): Brooklyn’s winter offering follows the fairly common model of a Scottish Ale, but doesn’t have the heartier flavors or heat that are often associated with such warmers. Yet I still found it to be a pretty good beer for a cold winter day. And definitely one that you go to when you hankering to put down more than one. 3
TOTAL SCORE (0-19): 14
Thursday, January 12, 2012
Stillwater Crime Watch: Up in Smoke
From the cold, hard streets of Stillwater, the tale of a wayward youth attempting to pursue a life of crime. Via the Stillwater Gazette:
Well, at least he was trying to mix in a balanced diet with his snuff.
I wonder how long he thought about what items he should purchase along with the chewing tobacco to make it look perfectly natural. What does the sophisticated, mature Grizzly Chew connoisseur like to have along with his dip? Of course, a bagel! If I were the police, I’d start looking for suspects at the closest Jewish Community Center.
Back in my wayward youth, I recall having a discussion with a co-conspirator about using the ski-mask gambit to buy alcohol while under age. It seemed like it could work. But as our theater of operations was the colder and harder streets of Minneapolis, we figured there was a reasonable chance of getting shot as well, so the idea was abandoned. Good to see the kids of today haven’t given up the dream yet.
You'e got hand it to this kid, he's got moxie. Rather than flee upon being challenged, he gives them the chin reveal. Unless you happen to be Jay Leno, that's not going to be good enough for a positive ID, and he was rightfully turned away.
The laws surrounding tobacco sales were upheld and hopefully the young man went home, realized that crime doesn't pay, and dedicated his life to something noble like becoming a community organizer.
But wait!
The Claude Rains approach, I love it.
Because nothing eases the pain of disfiguring facial injuries like a Swisher Sweet.
Seems like the perfect crime so far. But our pre-pubescent tobacco aficionado overlooked one critical detail:
A 17-year-old male twice failed to buy tobacco despite dressing in disguise Wednesday night.
The suspect made his first attempt around 9 p.m. wearing a ski mask and sunglasses. The teen tried to buy two tins of Grizzly Chew tobacco along with a bottle of Mountain Dew and a bagel.
Well, at least he was trying to mix in a balanced diet with his snuff.
I wonder how long he thought about what items he should purchase along with the chewing tobacco to make it look perfectly natural. What does the sophisticated, mature Grizzly Chew connoisseur like to have along with his dip? Of course, a bagel! If I were the police, I’d start looking for suspects at the closest Jewish Community Center.
Back in my wayward youth, I recall having a discussion with a co-conspirator about using the ski-mask gambit to buy alcohol while under age. It seemed like it could work. But as our theater of operations was the colder and harder streets of Minneapolis, we figured there was a reasonable chance of getting shot as well, so the idea was abandoned. Good to see the kids of today haven’t given up the dream yet.
He produced a Minnesota driver's license that showed a birth date of 1967. The cashier asked the teen to remove his hat and his facemask so he could properly identify him. The teen lifted his hat up slightly and pulled the facemask up to his chin while trying to manipulate his voice into a deeper tone. The cashier reported to the police that the suspect seemed to be around 15 years old. The suspect left the gas station after the cashier refused to sell him the tobacco.
You'e got hand it to this kid, he's got moxie. Rather than flee upon being challenged, he gives them the chin reveal. Unless you happen to be Jay Leno, that's not going to be good enough for a positive ID, and he was rightfully turned away.
The laws surrounding tobacco sales were upheld and hopefully the young man went home, realized that crime doesn't pay, and dedicated his life to something noble like becoming a community organizer.
But wait!
A couple of hours later, the same teen returned to the gas station wearing a different jacket, hat and sunglasses and had his entire face wrapped with an ace bandage, leaving only a small hole for his mouth and one eye opening.
The Claude Rains approach, I love it.
According to the report, the cashier and employees were nervous because the suspect had his right arm tucked inside his jacket while he loitered in the store for about 15 minutes. The suspect then approached the checkout counter and said he was recovering from an accident and needed Ibuprofen. He also asked to buy some thin, small cigars.
Because nothing eases the pain of disfiguring facial injuries like a Swisher Sweet.
Seems like the perfect crime so far. But our pre-pubescent tobacco aficionado overlooked one critical detail:
The suspect produced the same driver's license as earlier that night. The same cashier refused to sell him the tobacco.
Officers tracked down the suspect by the other purchases made with a Visa credit card. Officers arrived at a Stillwater home and interviewed the teen and his parents. The boy admitted trying to buy tobacco even though he was underage. The teen was cited for attempted tobacco purchase from a minor, displaying another's driver's license and concealing his identity in public.
Sounds like they're throwing the book at him. But I wouldn't be surprised if this isn’t the last we've heard of this guy. A person with this level of creativity and determination will not be easily deterred. For that reason, I warn all other tobacco merchants in the St. Croix Valley, be on the look out for any of these types of individuals attempting to buy Grizzly Chew; thin, small cigars; bagels; or ibuprofen:
a Saudi Arabian woman
a hockey goalie
a fencing enthusiast
a Minnesota Vikings fan
God's Not A Fan
Former NFL great Fran Tarkenton has a piece in today's WSJ asking Does God Care Who Wins Football Games?:
As a player, though, I never understood why God would care who won a game between my team and another. It seemed like there were many far more important things going on in the world. There were religious guys on both teams. If God gets credit for the win, does he also take blame for defeat?
For what it's worth, my forays into hoping for divine intervention didn't work out. I prayed fervently before each of the three Super Bowls we Minnesota Vikings played in. We played against the Dolphins, the Steelers and the Raiders. I don't know about the first two games, but I was sure God would be on our side for the game against the Raiders! After all, they were the villains of the league, and it was hard to believe they had more Christians on their team than on our saintly Vikings. We lost.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
As a player, though, I never understood why God would care who won a game between my team and another. It seemed like there were many far more important things going on in the world. There were religious guys on both teams. If God gets credit for the win, does he also take blame for defeat?
For what it's worth, my forays into hoping for divine intervention didn't work out. I prayed fervently before each of the three Super Bowls we Minnesota Vikings played in. We played against the Dolphins, the Steelers and the Raiders. I don't know about the first two games, but I was sure God would be on our side for the game against the Raiders! After all, they were the villains of the league, and it was hard to believe they had more Christians on their team than on our saintly Vikings. We lost.
The Lord works in mysterious ways.
Wednesday, January 11, 2012
HWX, with Stephen Hunter
The latest Hinderaker Ward Experience podcast is now up on Ricochet and ready for your listening pleasure.
We taped it last night, in what we thought would be the heat of the New Hampshire primary election coverage. I had visions of being a podcast version of Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, or Cenk Uygar, the trusted voice of reason, dispassionately calling all the returns as they came in. (Yes, nobody could have listened to it for hours yet, but you take what you can get on the Internet.) Alas, the drama didn't endure very long and by the time we started talking just after 7pm, the race was already called for Mitt Romney.
We then discussed the nature of this GOP primary season, which I characterize as the most dispiriting in memory. The level of vitriol shown by conservatives toward whichever other conservative happened to be leading in the national polls has been unprecedented. As a supporter of Newt, particularly eye-opening has been the emotion based attacks and distortion of his record, from people I respect. John Hinderaker's veering into this very territory was the cause of rather heated debate (at least by the standard of two guys who pretty much agree on everything). Getting put in the position of rebutting the preposterous claim that Newt is "attacking capitalism" by identifying potentially questionable episodes in Romney's record with Bain Capital led to the first Main Street vs. Wall Street debate I've been in where I was ardently siding with the former. Rest assured, I won't be occupying Mahtomedi any time soon, but I must say I like breathing the populist air on occasion. It was a fun conversation and ended well with everyone coming together for some gratuitous shots at Democrats.
Afterwards we were joined by the great Stephen Hunter, author of the new thriller, Soft Target. You may remember him as the Pulitzer Prize winning film critic for the Washington Post, also author of the Bob Lee Swagger series and non-fiction books such as American Gunfight. His new novel is about a terrorist attack, set at the Mall of America. He's always fun to talk to and in addition to discussing his books, we get to hear plenty about his other passions, including his love of guns.
Later, we wrap up with a holiday themed Loon of the Week and a highly controversial This Week in Gatekeeping (the full extent of which I'm still not sure passed the Ricochet family values censor).
Many ways to hear the podcast, including over on the mothership at Ricochet. You can be sure to never miss an episode, by subscribing via iTunes or Feedburner. Or just use the player embedded below or in the upper right hand corner of this web site. If all of these fail, send me an email and I'll come to your house and read from the written transcript.
A Strict Separation of Your Politics & Your State of Mind
Byron Horatio asks Are You a Happy Conservative?:
Modern conservatives are not generally known for their sunny optimism about the future, about the direction of the country, and certainly not about human nature. When you base your worldview around the assumption that human nature is severely flawed (if not downright amoral or evil), that utopia is a dangerously illusory, and that at a given moment, polite society could easily devolve into madness and anarchy...it's no wonder conservatives are not a cheery bunch.
So how do you separate your pessimism from your "normal," non-political, everyday life? For my own part, as much as I see doom and danger around every corner, I consider myself a very happy individual with a fulfilling life. I love the work I do (painting and the military), have a sizable number of friends, enjoy my hobbies of guns and history, and am planning a lovely wedding with [the future] Lady Horatio.
It's true that I subscribe to Steynian declinism, believe the general population is too far gone to turn back the welfare state, and that good may yet lose in the struggle against evil...and yet none of that really matters to me on a raw, emotional level. I believe, I think rightly, that even should all the apolcalyptic predictions come true, that I would be just as happy, providing life, limb, and my peacemaker remained unscathed.
It's a grave danger to tie up one's personal happiness in the things you can't control. If I were to base my happiness on the success of liberty abroad, the pursuit of justice, or election results every two years, I would have drunk myself into oblivion well before now.
The last thought is a sentiment that I believe many of us share. I’ve mentioned before that as a conservative and a Christian, I would describe myself as what Chesterton called a "happy pessimist." Personally, I find great happiness and satisfaction in my life through my faith, my family, and friends. While I may not quite embrace the same feeling of inevitable doom for Western Civilization as some conservatives have, I do recognize that this is a fallen world and I remain deeply skeptical about any possibility of the prospect of inevitable progress toward a anything close to a state of earthly perfection. I learned long ago that if you leave the fate of your personal happiness in the hands of politicians, celebrities, or sports teams you are guaranteed to be disappointed.
Modern conservatives are not generally known for their sunny optimism about the future, about the direction of the country, and certainly not about human nature. When you base your worldview around the assumption that human nature is severely flawed (if not downright amoral or evil), that utopia is a dangerously illusory, and that at a given moment, polite society could easily devolve into madness and anarchy...it's no wonder conservatives are not a cheery bunch.
So how do you separate your pessimism from your "normal," non-political, everyday life? For my own part, as much as I see doom and danger around every corner, I consider myself a very happy individual with a fulfilling life. I love the work I do (painting and the military), have a sizable number of friends, enjoy my hobbies of guns and history, and am planning a lovely wedding with [the future] Lady Horatio.
It's true that I subscribe to Steynian declinism, believe the general population is too far gone to turn back the welfare state, and that good may yet lose in the struggle against evil...and yet none of that really matters to me on a raw, emotional level. I believe, I think rightly, that even should all the apolcalyptic predictions come true, that I would be just as happy, providing life, limb, and my peacemaker remained unscathed.
It's a grave danger to tie up one's personal happiness in the things you can't control. If I were to base my happiness on the success of liberty abroad, the pursuit of justice, or election results every two years, I would have drunk myself into oblivion well before now.
The last thought is a sentiment that I believe many of us share. I’ve mentioned before that as a conservative and a Christian, I would describe myself as what Chesterton called a "happy pessimist." Personally, I find great happiness and satisfaction in my life through my faith, my family, and friends. While I may not quite embrace the same feeling of inevitable doom for Western Civilization as some conservatives have, I do recognize that this is a fallen world and I remain deeply skeptical about any possibility of the prospect of inevitable progress toward a anything close to a state of earthly perfection. I learned long ago that if you leave the fate of your personal happiness in the hands of politicians, celebrities, or sports teams you are guaranteed to be disappointed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)