San
Diego's Corporate 'Carcentrism'.
So I don't know if may be I'm just biased against cars. Yet there is some thing overwhelmingly deceptive in the stance that San Diego's READER takes on them.
Not only is this publication sketchy to begin with. There's no section for Opinionated Editorials, for instance. This means that critics of its rather corporate writing -- ranging from the hegemonic to the asinine -- can only voice their complaints over an Internet Blog.
Aside from that, it's obvious that any publication for the San Diegan that can be distributed for free can only be aimed at two halves of one audience:
Consumers and Businessmen.*
* I know it's not politically correct of me to say 'man'. Would you rather have me say 'swine'?
As a good card player hides his hand, I shall spare you the philosophy (this time).
All I shall say is that we're living in a Culture of Convenience. This topic is one I have written about yet not published. A formal elaboration is due, for an other time.
Yet here we can find evidence that I cannot ignore:
- Every Advertisement I've yet found WITHIN the magazine offers a sort of monetary compensation or reward, including in some cases absurd promises of refund in event of failure.
'Satisfaction guaranteed' indeed.
- There is a page devoted to a 'hipster' trying to determine if a girl should or should not 'dump' her boy friend whose position on the 'tipping' institution echoes that of Mr. Pink from RESERVOIR DOGS.
A sample of the underlined include:
"At first, I thought he had great prospects, because he is polite, funny, and NOT TOO HARD on the eyes."
"[He] Doesn't tip BECAUSE THE REST OF THE WORLD DOESN'T..."
"I needed my tips to AUGMENT MY MEASLY WAGES."
"The Millenial generation (which is 40-90 percent hipster, DEPENDING ON WHOM YOU ASK..."
"Hipsters/millenials are also the group that ENSHRINED casual dining as a social function..."
"We might even be moving toward the point where tipping CEASES TO MAKE SENSE..."
"Perhaps he's JUMPING THE GUN (TIPPING IS CUSTOMARY, DESPITE ITS FLAWS)..."
"... but don't let a DUBIOUS CONVENTION come between you, your lovers, and your friends."
- To top it all off is this enticing (read 'enraging') cover titled (and quite self-entitled) 'Stop the Irrational Bike Bias.'
Sub-titled:
'The case for car-centric planning.'
For once, allow me to perform a Vonnegut and jump ahead to part of this laborious, be-labored article that *I* found most depriving and depraved:
'Transit uses a lot more energy per passenger-mile than driving, yet they still put transit above automobiles.'
Upon first trying to read this article I had to tread carefully through all of the muck, but THIS Orwellian turn of phrase was a QUAGMIRE. Despite my fears of sinking I had to spend a few minutes taking it apart. It's meaning is nebulous, deceptive, and statistically remote as any meaning you could find in corporate journals.
One INTERPRETATION of the phrase in question is that we compiled the data that included all the city bus routes, based on either polling or surveillance, took the gross number of passengers (as opposed to the NUMBER of GROSS passengers [See Img. below]) and divided by them all the gas expenses and electrical expenses shared by Transit Company and City.
Now, of course, this rhetoric is for the bird brains. It is furthermore for some one who's forgotten HOW A BUS WORKS.
A
bus or train has a set route.
Let's use the San Diego Sprinter, for instance. Each day, several times, this train takes fifty-something minutes to transport its patrons from Escondido to Oceanside, granted they do not get off at one of several stops along the way. Of course, the train is not substantially DELAYED by passengers who get on or get off; it's simply that not ALL its passengers USE all that MILEAGE.
Now, for five dollars, I can ride Sprinter any time within the day I spent the money.
I could go from CSUSM to Palomar and back five times or so. Or I could go from San Marcos to Vista (if I have a death-wish; I hate Vista.). But my point is that, at either rate, I only need five dollars for the WHOLE, ENTIRE DAY. There are no limits within reason for the 'passenger-hours' I get, and I can spend this time however I might choose or need.
Now let's look at this SAME train from the city's economic perspective.
Each day, every day, the train conforms to just ONE solitary route, back and forth. There are plenty Sprinter trains, in fact, so you can catch one at your station every half-hour. Each day, the train spends quite the SAME amount of energy. This permits us to plan AROUND it economically.
If the expenditure for energy gets all too high, we can just raise the fee. If the output of energy poses some sort of threat, we can use fewer trains and change the train schedule.
Let's use the San Diego Sprinter, for instance. Each day, several times, this train takes fifty-something minutes to transport its patrons from Escondido to Oceanside, granted they do not get off at one of several stops along the way. Of course, the train is not substantially DELAYED by passengers who get on or get off; it's simply that not ALL its passengers USE all that MILEAGE.
Now, for five dollars, I can ride Sprinter any time within the day I spent the money.
I could go from CSUSM to Palomar and back five times or so. Or I could go from San Marcos to Vista (if I have a death-wish; I hate Vista.). But my point is that, at either rate, I only need five dollars for the WHOLE, ENTIRE DAY. There are no limits within reason for the 'passenger-hours' I get, and I can spend this time however I might choose or need.
Now let's look at this SAME train from the city's economic perspective.
Each day, every day, the train conforms to just ONE solitary route, back and forth. There are plenty Sprinter trains, in fact, so you can catch one at your station every half-hour. Each day, the train spends quite the SAME amount of energy. This permits us to plan AROUND it economically.
If the expenditure for energy gets all too high, we can just raise the fee. If the output of energy poses some sort of threat, we can use fewer trains and change the train schedule.
Now
here's the point: Passenger-hours vary, and DEPENDING ON THE PASSENGERS. If
twenty passengers go cruising from Esco to O-side one day, we can take the
energy expended and divide it then by twenty. This would be a LARGER number
than the one we get if FORTY people take the SAME EXACT ROUTE.
By the principle of fractions, our statistic would be halved. This means that the phrase 'energy per passenger-mile' is wholly arbitrary in its application; it is meaningless. If Forty people want to ride the train one day, and they ride all the way, the train uses just as MUCH energy as if half of that crowd had opted out of it instead. The train would make twice the money, but only if all forty in plan A bought day-passes, and only if all twenty in plan B decided not to spend money at ALL on N.C.T.D. Transportation that same day. All so, if some guy bought a day-pass for five dollars, planning to go up to Oceanside, but met a pretty girl along the way and got off with her at her stop at Palomar (in some sort of 'Before Sunrise' scenario), the train would STILL have made five dollars, it would STILL have spent all of that energy, and yet BECAUSE THAT PASSENGER DECIDED to travel a shorter route, there was a LESSER quantity of 'passenger-hours', and therefore, statistically, a GREATER 'energy per passenger-mile'.
By the principle of fractions, our statistic would be halved. This means that the phrase 'energy per passenger-mile' is wholly arbitrary in its application; it is meaningless. If Forty people want to ride the train one day, and they ride all the way, the train uses just as MUCH energy as if half of that crowd had opted out of it instead. The train would make twice the money, but only if all forty in plan A bought day-passes, and only if all twenty in plan B decided not to spend money at ALL on N.C.T.D. Transportation that same day. All so, if some guy bought a day-pass for five dollars, planning to go up to Oceanside, but met a pretty girl along the way and got off with her at her stop at Palomar (in some sort of 'Before Sunrise' scenario), the train would STILL have made five dollars, it would STILL have spent all of that energy, and yet BECAUSE THAT PASSENGER DECIDED to travel a shorter route, there was a LESSER quantity of 'passenger-hours', and therefore, statistically, a GREATER 'energy per passenger-mile'.
If
the DENOMINATOR (passenger-miles) of a fraction is made lesser, but the
NUMERATOR (energy) remains the same, the fraction's higher. This all so means
that if the writers for the READER want to get MORE passenger-hours per energy
they should encourage there to BE MORE PASSENGERS.
Yet this is quite the OPPOSITE of what they do.
'Irrational bias', indeed.
This article, entitled the 'case for car-centric planning', does not seem to really HAVE a case, except for a head-case.
Further complaints I have are more or less what you'd expect. You can see for yourself. The article is childish, even infantile, pointing fingers in imitation of democracy, just like the ignoramus who in childhood asked 'why do we HAVE to learn this?' but in adulthood never bothered to find an answer.
For those of you who had the deep misfortune of being-debaters, give it up now for a LINE-BY-LINE!: (all caps are mine.)
1. 'Despite the machinations of government and strident voices of "alternative transportation" advocates, CARS STILL RULE.'
Despite the use of a few big words, you sound like you're caught between a Hot Wheels commercial and an elementary-
School level Battle of the Sexes.
2. 'But there are dissenters, those who contend that cities should be car-centric, because that's WHAT AMERICANS PREFER'.
I know that some of you out there in Memeland like to invoke 'Godwin's Law', but:
Honestly, as a Jew myself, I am insulted when some proto-
Fascist tells me that I CAN'T use Hitler as an argument, as though one man could be a fallacy simply because MOST men know little of him.
And oh, yeah. He WAS democratically elected.
3. 'Despite the HYPE HEAPED ON OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT Americans appreciate the right that the automobile has wrought on the Republic.'
Yet this is quite the OPPOSITE of what they do.
'Irrational bias', indeed.
This article, entitled the 'case for car-centric planning', does not seem to really HAVE a case, except for a head-case.
Further complaints I have are more or less what you'd expect. You can see for yourself. The article is childish, even infantile, pointing fingers in imitation of democracy, just like the ignoramus who in childhood asked 'why do we HAVE to learn this?' but in adulthood never bothered to find an answer.
For those of you who had the deep misfortune of being-debaters, give it up now for a LINE-BY-LINE!: (all caps are mine.)
1. 'Despite the machinations of government and strident voices of "alternative transportation" advocates, CARS STILL RULE.'
Despite the use of a few big words, you sound like you're caught between a Hot Wheels commercial and an elementary-
School level Battle of the Sexes.
2. 'But there are dissenters, those who contend that cities should be car-centric, because that's WHAT AMERICANS PREFER'.
I know that some of you out there in Memeland like to invoke 'Godwin's Law', but:
Honestly, as a Jew myself, I am insulted when some proto-
Fascist tells me that I CAN'T use Hitler as an argument, as though one man could be a fallacy simply because MOST men know little of him.
And oh, yeah. He WAS democratically elected.
3. 'Despite the HYPE HEAPED ON OTHER MODES OF TRANSPORT Americans appreciate the right that the automobile has wrought on the Republic.'
Oh,
yeah: did I mention that Ford was a Nazi?
True story bro. Besides: What kind of 'Right' are we discussing? If it's 'wrought', and not by Nature so much as by a MACHINE, it's hardly inalienable, RIGHT?
I mean: Our 'rights' were ostensibly endowed by some creator. Does that make Ford GOD, as in Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD?
4. 'Lots of cars and no bikes on Harbor Drive, at Grape Street.'
Twenty-five and I know that you can do better. If I took a picture of Lance Armstrong or some Russian winning a bike race and wrote 'Lots of bikes and no cars', you'd scoff at me. Yes: Bikes are a minority. Take that how you will, either as a concession or a further argument. It works both ways. The fact is that nothing could be EASIER for you to do than to find a photo opportunity in mid-day down-town traffic where no bicycles are present. But there ARE bikes OUT there. May be cyclists just know to stay away from traffic and news cameras. Plus they tend to pass by SWIFTLY. But I can't complain too much, if I am to-be-generous. After all: This photo is not ENTIRELY car-
Biased; there's a F*CKING BUS RIGHT IN IT.
True story bro. Besides: What kind of 'Right' are we discussing? If it's 'wrought', and not by Nature so much as by a MACHINE, it's hardly inalienable, RIGHT?
I mean: Our 'rights' were ostensibly endowed by some creator. Does that make Ford GOD, as in Aldous Huxley's BRAVE NEW WORLD?
4. 'Lots of cars and no bikes on Harbor Drive, at Grape Street.'
Twenty-five and I know that you can do better. If I took a picture of Lance Armstrong or some Russian winning a bike race and wrote 'Lots of bikes and no cars', you'd scoff at me. Yes: Bikes are a minority. Take that how you will, either as a concession or a further argument. It works both ways. The fact is that nothing could be EASIER for you to do than to find a photo opportunity in mid-day down-town traffic where no bicycles are present. But there ARE bikes OUT there. May be cyclists just know to stay away from traffic and news cameras. Plus they tend to pass by SWIFTLY. But I can't complain too much, if I am to-be-generous. After all: This photo is not ENTIRELY car-
Biased; there's a F*CKING BUS RIGHT IN IT.
Thank you for reminding us that PUBLIC TRANSIT HAPPENZ.
5.
'I spoke to another think-
Tanker, Baruch Feigenbaum of the Reason Institute, which, like Cato, champions the libertarian ideal of the laissez-fairs economy.'
I would like to thank the author, Mr. Gropen, for using the first-person pronoun.
It really sets the mood as very intimate as he proceeds to BULL-DOZE all the opposition with his liberation propaganda.
What's wrong with liberty? Only the tendency to use it to limit its self. And that is what we see here. Only unlike Sartre's notion of Bad Faith, the freedom limited here is NOT that of the limiter.
Libertarian economics are what Charles Reich calls the first tier of American consciousness. It's America's sweet, selfish, irresponsible childhood. It is competitive in Nature. It RESISTS the NATURAL progression of a people from DIS-unity towards unity, a latter stage which is in turn transcended to create a SELF-RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.
The 'freedom' offered by the laissez-faire is all ways competitive; freedom AT THE EXPENSE of an OTHER. It does not matter if our education seems 'biased against' the laissez-faire. The very fact that libertarians roam from an early age shows us that there STILL are libertarians who can't imagine FREEDOM that is not at the EXPENSE of some MINORITY.
Libertarianism, in its extreme, is either anarcho-capitalism or Rapture from BioShock.
I WOULD show you what ANARCHO-CAPITALISM looks like, but I'm not in the habit of down-
loading things from the deep Web. For those of you who do not know: NEVER download from the Deep-Web! You honestly MIGHT end up next on a list of victims due to be killed in 'snuff-films' that are made for entertainment.
Zoinks and Jenkies.
Any way: coming back to ordinary life, we see that Mr. Gropen and friends are oscillating between what Reich calls 'Consciousness I' and 'Consciousness II'.
On one hand, they defend the 'liberties of the common American' (that is: 'your individual choice matters, so long as you're one of us.').
On the other hand, they force us autophobes into the public ridicule for threatening the 'common good' as seen through the lens of corporate-state bureaucracy.
So basically the target audience here is children and adolescents, but NOT adults.
6. "I love trains, and I love cycling, but I try not to promote policies that ask other people to subsidize my hobbies."
Tanker, Baruch Feigenbaum of the Reason Institute, which, like Cato, champions the libertarian ideal of the laissez-fairs economy.'
I would like to thank the author, Mr. Gropen, for using the first-person pronoun.
It really sets the mood as very intimate as he proceeds to BULL-DOZE all the opposition with his liberation propaganda.
What's wrong with liberty? Only the tendency to use it to limit its self. And that is what we see here. Only unlike Sartre's notion of Bad Faith, the freedom limited here is NOT that of the limiter.
Libertarian economics are what Charles Reich calls the first tier of American consciousness. It's America's sweet, selfish, irresponsible childhood. It is competitive in Nature. It RESISTS the NATURAL progression of a people from DIS-unity towards unity, a latter stage which is in turn transcended to create a SELF-RESPONSIBLE HUMAN BEING.
The 'freedom' offered by the laissez-faire is all ways competitive; freedom AT THE EXPENSE of an OTHER. It does not matter if our education seems 'biased against' the laissez-faire. The very fact that libertarians roam from an early age shows us that there STILL are libertarians who can't imagine FREEDOM that is not at the EXPENSE of some MINORITY.
Libertarianism, in its extreme, is either anarcho-capitalism or Rapture from BioShock.
I WOULD show you what ANARCHO-CAPITALISM looks like, but I'm not in the habit of down-
loading things from the deep Web. For those of you who do not know: NEVER download from the Deep-Web! You honestly MIGHT end up next on a list of victims due to be killed in 'snuff-films' that are made for entertainment.
Zoinks and Jenkies.
Any way: coming back to ordinary life, we see that Mr. Gropen and friends are oscillating between what Reich calls 'Consciousness I' and 'Consciousness II'.
On one hand, they defend the 'liberties of the common American' (that is: 'your individual choice matters, so long as you're one of us.').
On the other hand, they force us autophobes into the public ridicule for threatening the 'common good' as seen through the lens of corporate-state bureaucracy.
So basically the target audience here is children and adolescents, but NOT adults.
6. "I love trains, and I love cycling, but I try not to promote policies that ask other people to subsidize my hobbies."
As
it turns out no one's telling you to scrap your car for parts to build more
waterworks.
You can 'like' whatever you want. The question is of what you NEED. And 'needs' are not merely myopic short-terms goals.
If I wanted to beat my friends to Qualcomm stadium, a Lambourghuini would serve better than a bicycle. Whatever. If I ran my Lambourghuini OVER some one in my haste, my pedaling friends could say I NEEDED to have been more careful, as THEY were. It might have not been what I LIKED, but it was what my VICTIM and I NEEDED. If our friends don't care about the SELF-RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY of some one who decides to go AGAINST THE GRAIN, what they are REALLY saying is:
'I love trains, and I love cycling, but I love cars more, and so f*ck people who love trains and cars.
It doesn't matter WHAT their reasoning is. Being-popular is more important than being-right, and if I run over a biker that's HER fault.'
It sounds exaggerated, but...:
7. "Where are auto/bike accidents actually taking place?
They're not taking place where a car overtakes a bike and hits it from behind; the vast majority happen at intersections."
I had a friend named Mike who liked to drive over the speed limit. His most hated people were those who drove UNDER the speed limit.
He called them what you might expect. Irresponsible. Selfish. Bad.
This was the guy who did not like arguments that used Hitler, too. If only he could understand the tendency that Fascists have to vilify an Other.
Fact is that this article does the same. Notice that it makes NO mention of bike-on-bike collisions. Why pass up such a fine opportunity? Because that sh*t just does not TEND to happen. Whereas Car-on-Car collisions, on the other hand:
You can 'like' whatever you want. The question is of what you NEED. And 'needs' are not merely myopic short-terms goals.
If I wanted to beat my friends to Qualcomm stadium, a Lambourghuini would serve better than a bicycle. Whatever. If I ran my Lambourghuini OVER some one in my haste, my pedaling friends could say I NEEDED to have been more careful, as THEY were. It might have not been what I LIKED, but it was what my VICTIM and I NEEDED. If our friends don't care about the SELF-RESPONSIBLE AUTHORITY of some one who decides to go AGAINST THE GRAIN, what they are REALLY saying is:
'I love trains, and I love cycling, but I love cars more, and so f*ck people who love trains and cars.
It doesn't matter WHAT their reasoning is. Being-popular is more important than being-right, and if I run over a biker that's HER fault.'
It sounds exaggerated, but...:
7. "Where are auto/bike accidents actually taking place?
They're not taking place where a car overtakes a bike and hits it from behind; the vast majority happen at intersections."
I had a friend named Mike who liked to drive over the speed limit. His most hated people were those who drove UNDER the speed limit.
He called them what you might expect. Irresponsible. Selfish. Bad.
This was the guy who did not like arguments that used Hitler, too. If only he could understand the tendency that Fascists have to vilify an Other.
Fact is that this article does the same. Notice that it makes NO mention of bike-on-bike collisions. Why pass up such a fine opportunity? Because that sh*t just does not TEND to happen. Whereas Car-on-Car collisions, on the other hand:
'Hilarious' blooper? I think not.
8. "The only people who might be smugger than cyclists are vegans," asserts O'Toole.
I'm not going to even TRY to take this comment seriously.
Apparently to be HUMBLE in Christian culture one must both eat animal products and drive an auto.
8. "The only people who might be smugger than cyclists are vegans," asserts O'Toole.
I'm not going to even TRY to take this comment seriously.
Apparently to be HUMBLE in Christian culture one must both eat animal products and drive an auto.
There goes my cardio. And my vegan lunch. From yesterday.
All in all, I've proven my point. If you want to see theatre worse than the Rocky Horror Picture Show, the San Diego Reader is for you.
And while I'm at it:
Fuck cars.
Dm.A.A.
No comments:
Post a Comment