The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Concentrated Minds

3.28.05 @ 12:01AM

(Page 3 of 5)

There is a place for bike paths. They're good for leisurely family rides with small children. Maybe they're the right thing for some heavily urbanized areas. But I'm afraid that in the long run, bicycle paths will work against bicycle transportation. I am wary of the state bicycle coordinators being hired under congressional mandates from the '90s. In the name of helping bicyclists what these people are really going to be doing is shunting them off onto a bike path ghetto and keeping them off the regular roads. That is not what we want.
-- John Gorentz
Battle Creek, Michigan

Why is it that bikers get their paths and lanes for free? Everyone else has to pay a road use tax in the form of a license for EVERY vehicle they put on the road, except a bicycle. I think that if bicyclists want ANY lanes, they should PAY A TAX for the extra vehicle they are putting on the road, just like everyone else has to. I'm not talking about the kid who rides his $50 bike to school or to deliver papers; I'm talking about those who buy bikes with $2,000 titanium frames, $200 wheels, $100 tires, $100 helmets; $90 tights, etc., AND PAY NOTHING, while others who want to use a $200 utility trailer have to pay a tax.
-- Gordon Paravano
Sedona, Arizona

If people actually rode their bicycles, bike paths might have some value, but even when there are bike paths, most people don't use them. Also they become paths for other things like golf carts.
-- Frank Mauran

C'mon, Spectators. Fess up.

YEWWW people just want to divert that money to build SWIMMING pools, and HANDBALL courts.

We know your sort.

Regards,
-- Doug Welty
Arlington, Virginia

GETTING WITH IT
Re: Lawrence Henry's Is This "It"?:

The "It" passed. The "It" was the event of Nov. 2, 2004. That is, the just finished American elections.

I surmise that this is "It" for the fact that on that date the largest electoral vote count in the history of the Republic occurred. It is significant for several reasons.

* Democrats turned out record number of voters. But more important Republicans did them 3 million better. Significant in that Republicans have not traditionally been grass roots vote getters in comparison to the Democrats.

* That many had determined that the 2004 vote may have been a turning point in the make up of this country for at least a generation. That the electorate determined to speak loudly at the ballot box for "NO" has emboldened the Silent Majority to be more vocal.

* The 2004 election also marked a change in the culture war. No longer are the Lefts bastions in the educational, media and judicial edifices being left unchallenged. The Ward Churchill's are being shown up for what they both represent and lack. The fact that the battle has been enjoined indicates a major shift in attitude.

So what was the "It"? The majority of the individual voters saying "No More!"
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

It is interesting that Mr. Henry only considers one side of "it" in this controversy. Hasn't he read the polls? And no, I don't mean the ABC poll. Everyone I've spoken with about the Schiavo case, and granted, we are all just middle of the road, working, tax paying Republicans, are disgusted with the Republican/religious right position on this issue. Hopefully this is going to be an "it" moment that shows the country how the religious right is only concerned with controlling peoples lives. FMA, Schiavo, steroids, etc. The Republican party has lost its way. It is no longer the party of fiscal responsibility, limited government or free markets. It is now the party of the religious extremists that are more interested in one woman's "life" than in the rule of law. Perhaps Mr. Henry should ask God who killed Terri Schiavo... isn't he/she ultimately responsible for her fate?
-- Ben Berry
Washington, D.C.

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Transportation, Education, Business, Sports, Abortion, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Military, Iraq, NATO, Fascism, Conservatism