>Doug writes
>[the WSJ editpage is normally a nutty place, but this one stands out
>even by its standards]
>
>I can't agree. The article seemed very sensible to me, it was the
>students who were nutty.
>
>Far from being a means of destruction, the internal combustion
>engine is a condition for the reproduction of western societies.
>
>Consider this, almost every single thing that you will buy from your
>local store or supermarket was delivered by van or lorry. The
>agricultural output that sustains the US and Europe is premised upon
>the motorisation of agriculture. And overwhelmingly, labour travels
>to work by car.
Well of course. This is hardly news to anyone, even the most avid car-hater. But that's not to address the point whether being so car-centered makes for a good society, or is ecologically sustainable. I know you, like Alex Cockburn, hold a position more skeptical on climate change than does the Bush administration. You're wrong, though.
Moore's position on the evacuation of New Orleans is demented. The major reason the city couldn't be evacuated quickly is that the plan, such as it was, was so auto-centric. A more collective system would have gotten more people out more quickly.
I will concede he has a point on the car = individualistic and public transit = collectivist argument. So you've completely gone over to the individualist/libertarian view of things, James?
Doug