Anti-Car People Part II

The zealotry of urban residents eats it own. Like the LGBT+ movement, it never truly reveals its hand all at once. 

What do I mean by this?

It's been the sentiment of urban residents, whether they're suburban or rural transplants, that it's a dream to not own a car because they can use public transportation in the form of busses and trains; and that the city they currently live in is walkable. But then something happened in the past five years or so.

These urban residents went to salivating over public transportation to bikes. If you listen carefully to their rhetoric they tend to focus on their preferred method of transportation versus their disdain for cars. Little mention to trains and busses. 

The "save mother Gaia" movement is a weird one. Many liked not owning a car because it saved them money and it helped reduce their carbon footprint. This is all good and I agree that not owning a car brings a certain type of freedom (you're not beholden to car maintenance, car insurance, gas prices, finding parking or paying for parking), but then they turned to electric cars to help further reduce air pollution. You'd think they'd be pleased by this. They were - sorta. 

Now I do agree that it's totally possible for each city in the US and its suburbs to become bike-friendly. I think the US would greatly benefit from it as a society. 

You see, it's not just busses and trains are provided, but that cars become electric. As the Go Green movement marched forward certain people like the Mayor of Emeryville - John Bauters - outright admits that he wants to deemphasize the use of cars despite his city being relatively car centric and to move to an "bike centric" city mindset. Even his public bio states that he's an enthusiastic bicyclist. Talk about forcing your secular beliefs down people's throats. This sorta kinda comes to no surprise given Emeryville is a city right outside Oakland, California. 

What's missing from this equation that there isn't much emphasis on balance. It's not enough to make cars electric - the Go Green movement ultimately wants cars to either become the minority mode of transportation even if its electric as they move society to a more European (think Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium). Sound familiar? 

These people tend to be of the same mindset that want the US to adopt universal healthcare and so-called free higher education.  They're the ones that use the moral relativism card in order to get their way - as with abortion and the normality of sodomy and other deviant sexual behaviors. But they turn a moral code when it comes to their own missions. Funny how that works out. 

Even in some urban residents say that they sorta kinda don't want to be dependent on public transportation schedules. This is where they prefer an e-scooter or biking if the place they need to go is longer than, say, 3 miles. They like the idea and the reality of getting on their scooter or bike and to come and go as they please. I guess public transportation, to a degree, has become the new car where some want to rid themselves of it. To some degree the scooter and bikes have slowly imbued the freedom that a car gives/gave to a person - the freedom to come and go as they please, but in an urban environment. 

As mentioned in the previous post, I am not opposed to America emphasizing bikes, walkability and the further investment in creating a more comprehensive and efficient bus and rail lines throughout the US. I encourage it. But the whole anti-car sentiment is a weird one given, that yes, the sense of actual freedom that makes the US unique is getting into a car and partaking in that classic American road trip that no other county is known for. In this case, I do not want to be dependent on the schedule of a train to get from LA to Boston. Flying would cover the same distance much quicker - even quicker than a bullet train. I'd rather hop in an electric car and go at my own pace. I want to stop in the middle of a deserted intersection in Utah or somewhere in Southwest America and embrace the vastness of the American landscape. On my own time. That's freedom. 

The Anti-Car People

 Are ignorant of history. 

They tend to admire the walkability of European cities - as do I - where many of these cities are "livable." I wish all American cities had more density and focused more on efficient public transportation - be it the combination of train, bus, cycling and foot traffic. 

I wish that, somehow, the suburbs could become less car centric with the transition from urban public transportation to the suburbs either become more seamless and thorough, or be created if they don't exist already.

I wish that swaths of parking lots found in the suburbs would shrink because the strength of the public transportation. Of course, more rural areas not withstanding. 

I wish many things that I want America to implement - the dream that interstate train transportation would reach Japan-like standards. One day. If the US can prioritize taking man to the moon than it can prioritize transportation not using cars. 

This is not say that I am anti-car. Far from it. Though I empathize with those who want good, efficient pubic transportation to grow in the existing urban centers of America, I also don't go as far to stigmatize those that do rely on a car every single to "participate in society" (as one bleeding heart puts it). I don't go as far as to call for a ban of cars (yep, there are those out there who want to ban cars). I will suggest that there should and can be an equilibrium between car driving and public transportation, especially in regards to commuting from the suburbs to the city and vice versa.

I say revolutionize car driving. The US should be the leader in electric cars and automobile research. Taking a cross country trip in America with an electric car would be a pain; charging an electric car takes too long and there isn't enough electric charging stations as there are gas stations. So if you do plan your trip to make carefully planned stops to recharge that recharge could take up to 4 hours until you hit the road again.  

Unlike some anti-car people like the YouTube channel Not Just Bikes (who is a prick and he actually admits this - most of his most watched vids are trashing American citifies and suburbs), I won't go all 1st world problem like him in a passive aggressive way. NJB is a Canadian who moved to the Netherlands because he was so enamored by how walkable their cities are. Okay, fair enough. You don't  got to be a prick about it and trash talk other countries. But enough that prick who retreats to the Old World because "grass is greener."

If America ever does realize that its lack of density just isn't attractive - or even sustainable, I propose the following:

• green trains and buses; expand already existing train lines and bus routes (with 5-7 minute departures each hour depend on city population)
• make every major and secondary city pedestrian friendly depends on the terrain of city
• make every city, big or small, if terrain allows (i.e. not Appalachia region) bicycle friendly with thorough bike paths 
• connect urban and suburban train railways with schedule that permits people to go to and from said locations from early work hours to well past midnight (i.e. last departure to suburbs is 2am with 10 minute intervals of departures)
• each state should have an comprehensive train and/or bus system that connects every and all cities to one another; the train system should connect to neighboring state's train system - basically forming an interstate train system/highway
• bullet trains connecting West, Midwest, South and East Coast (see: Shinkansen bullet trains)

But what that have to with history as I said in the beginning? Everything. People bash the US because isn't setup like Western European countries or Asian countries. They don't look into the history as to why. Instead, they just blame capitalism and say that America is crap and that they'd would never live there. It's okay. We send men to the moon as I pointed out earlier. You didn't build any of the already existing train and or bus routes, or any of the sidewalks or bike lanes. You benefit from those that came before you as you project a sense of smugness and superiority. 

Anti-car people will say when met with the talking point that American cities are relatively young therefore it grew and developed differently (this is 100% true) that cities like Rotterdam, Netherlands is also a new city. This is only half the truth. Sure, Rotterdam is new, but it grew out of an already existing city before Hitler raided and bombed it to ashes. The city was given a blank slate in order to build a "second city" where pedestrian friendly cities were the norm already in Europe (before the advent and normalization of automobiles as way of transportation). 

Small things like that are left out because they're too enamored of being in walkable environment. They fall in the same camp of zealotry for universal healthcare and "free" higher education. You see a pattern? It's Europe, Europe, Europe, Europe and maybe Japan. But mostly Eurocentric. 

I'd would like to see a compromise being made in the States between cars and public transportation. If there's a country that can say "we did our way" it's America. I believe that there's a healthy equilibrium somewhere in the far future where the US can rival Japan's public transpiration scene as electric trucks, cars and motorcycles zip across Route 66 as well. America can have it all - it just needs to be willing to accept the challenge as it did with the moon. 

I'll Stick to My Guns

In light of the recent gun shootings in Buffalo, New York and Uvadle, Texas I will say this: Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Guns are inanimate objects - just like a car, a pencil, a knife, a baseball, a machete or a shovel. Each item mentioned can be misused against anyone or thing. Alone the object cannot cause harm unless it's a bomb which is meant to self-destruct by its very nature. 

Don't believe me? Well, you ignore reality. People don't blame guns or the lack of gun control when nations go to war. If you're in a combat position you'll either be dead via bomb or by gun. Yet there's no calls for "gun control" when it comes to war - no one's saying the soldiers should use tasers or batons. Nope. The people who despise guns are not to be found here. What they do say is that X or Y war isn't necessary. Ah ha! So you're appealing for people to not declare war or to invade a country! People! It's the people! It's the head of the government responsibility to send or not to send troops in X or Y country. 

If people are going to call for gun control if not an outright ban of guns (see: Australia, UK), then you'd have to take a good look at cars and knives - both of which have been used as a means to harm or to murder someone - or alcohol which has a long, long, long history of abuse. But nope. Brittons won't have their pubs turned into literal watering holes, now, eh? 

On the end of the spectrum I do think those who extoll the goodness of America's 2A should tactfully bring up the issues of the lack off mental health in America. We have innocent people dying at the hands of psychopaths, sociopaths and the mentally unstable. Just last year an Asian women was pushed in front of an NYC train as she waited by a mentally unstable person. There was no serious national call for better care of his kind. 

Once again, we don't have a gun issue in the States. We have a mental health issue in the states which has been going on much longer before the likes of Columbine or Sandy Hook came into the picture. In my mind it's better to attack the root cause of it, not the means of it because it simply scares you (I myself have never handled a gun - in fact I'm intimidated by a gun not shown in a picture so there's that, yet I refuse to fall for the narratives of the anti-2A types). 

We don't need Woke education to be taught in American schools. Training and resources towards it are wasted time and money. What there needs to be put in schools at least one trained individual - who is vigilant and courageous at all times - to protect the one main entrance. That's a matter of life and death - or else all those kids who were to be killed won't grow up to be the physicians, engineers, social workers, teachers, moms, dads, astronauts and welders they were meant to be. Chuck out the Wokeness (which warps and later destroys them) and put in individuals who will protect our society's most innocent population. 

Why Western modernity and post-modernists are relatively boring people - and ultimately tragic people.

 The more I think about dating, having a significant other and an eventual spouse the idea of dating a person who is secular seems like dating a child or raising a young dog. Neither one is technically easy even if they don't colic or even if they're exceptionally well-behaved. 

This may come across as elitist, but ironically I'm coming to think that people who have no issue with social progressivism and have no sense of grounding in the divine are really inept. Sure, secularists can be moral but there's not much grounding for their morals and ethical map. 

Lately on social media, and I'm not true how honest these women are (for all I know they could be doing for the attention/clickbait), but left-leaning woman in the US have been publicly announcing in their dating profiles that they will not date a man who doesn't believe in [insert current trend/leftie social pet project]. For devout Christians dating is less political: believe in God and raise our future children to believe in God. There tends to be an absence of modern "Type A" standards. With a that said, a particular denomination probably has more specific personal demands -- but they more or less make sense i.e. moral and ethical standards of Catholicism. In many ways it is value based. 

A good example of "relatively boring people" would be people in Hollywood, especially actors, and the average Western European non-religious, secular person. I suppose it's just my own temperament but I have a hard time relating to someone who thinks half of their actions are based on "just do good." My demand for them intellectually is that they investigate the first cause. If they can't do that then any discussion about morality and ethics is dead in the water. There's no wind. There are no waves. Why should anyone attach themselves to them in a romantic and even sexual way besides to briefly slap skin with one another in order to fulfill carnal urges (and after willingly sterilizing themselves with ABC). It's an absurd way to live, to think and to champion.

In my last post I know I mentioned Britain, but I'll use them again for this post. (Sorry, Britons, I like your country but your overall call to morality sorta confuses me; I just don't take you guys seriously in that regards.) The Russia-Ukraine war has been international front-page news for the last, oh, I dunno, three months as I write this. It's a horrible situation for the Ukrainian people - and for the Russian people who oppose it. Now, like the US, I bet no one will think ill of the Russians as Europeans do of Americans (it's a double standard, really). Largely the UK is secular where anyone under 50 really gives no shits about the divine where they're mostly too preoccupied of dreaming being a beautician, an actor or becoming a professional drunk in the late evenings (of course I'm stereotyping). Within twenty years it'll be like the Nordic countries when it comes to overall environment towards religions - a carcass; post-Christian UK is practically transnationalism in the form of membership in the EU, their obsession with football/soccer, odd pride in the NHS and pub culture. Interesting for a few years but it soon gets tiring. They rest on their ancient history and London to make themselves attractive.

But wait, Goldrush, what about countries like Japan. Japan is largely secular where their citizens don't give much thought about morality and ethics in the form of a divine. Well, I feel the same way, but only to a degree. Unlike the UK which prides itself in being international (well, at least London does - a city which I think slightly overrated; hey, I think Paris is slightly overrated too so there's that), Japan more or less is Japan. They aren't apologetic for it. There's a distinct Japanese culture that you can't get anywhere else. Cities like London and Paris are only unique because of their history (architecture, cobble street roads etc.) - and not because it adopted a cosmopolitan outlook on the world. The more "worldly" a city or person becomes the more the same they become. Ironic how that works out.

In some ways I feel Japan just doesn't give a crap about flying multitude of flags from other countries like you'd see in some high school room in a public school Stateside. This is what I like about Japan - they have their standards which are rather insular and I like that. It protects their own culture from the never encroaching fingers of modernity and eventually post-modernism.

But unlike Wester Europe, Japan is rather socially conservative. There's more of a defined culture of gender roles. They don't go gaga on showing they utterly adore those on the LGBT+ spectrum. They don't virtue signal their "togetherness" with other countries. This can also be found in other Asian countries like South Korea though careerism is an issue as it is in Western Europe and America. 

This is partially why I like patriotism. Yes, you can be worldly but only to a degree. This is why I like pride found in the US. Pride is an absurd concept to Western Europeans. Adolf Hitler really scared the shit out of them so they interpret any sense of pride with the scent of Hitler. I don't view nationalism the way they do, and I do I think understand why they reject nationalism, but I ultimately don't agree with their conclusion about it. I support school pride, city pride, state and regional pride. The US should not follow in the footsteps of Western Europe in this regards to loving your own country. The US should not become a secular, nihilistic entity. If it does it loses its own goodness that made it truly great. 

Let's be real: Europe, as much as they talk crap about America and its lack of wisdom, they aren't going to build something like NASA, the Hoover Dam, or attract people like Elon Musk. Before they look to Western Europe, the Musks of the world are going to look further West and take a good look at the US.

So what does Western Europe have to offer the world besides its ancient ruins and socialized medicine? Not much. Though, Cambridge and Oxford are top notch, so I will give them that. Japan and Asia tend to do public transportation with bragging about it. 

Though not Catholicism, Protestant America is better than a secular America often found in places like San Francisco, LA, NYC, PNW and the New England region. Chicago is very similar to said cities, but at least the steeples that one sees from the highway show a life that was once there before secular hipsters moved in - and where a number of those steeples are still occupied by believers. 

Yes, Non-Americans, Usually From Western Europe, Do Not Understand the "Quirks" of America

I'm always interested in what non-Americans like about the US. Usually they preface their list with things they do not like. I find this odd given they tend to feel the strong urge to tell what they don't like first even when asked the opposite. If they don't like it first it's at the tail-end. After listing the positive they go ons saying "With that said, there are many things I dislike .... " Below are the most common, if not universal, issues non-Americans, usually Europeans, have with the US

• gun "culture"
• no universal healthcare
• "no" work-life balance and paid annual leave (Western Europe in general work less than 30 hrs per week)
• lack of paid maternity leave (they will then boast "we have 1 year paid maternity leave!")
• "only" two week (paid) vacation (instead of 1 month)
• apparently it's seen as unfair for the government to make its citizens do their own taxes
• no "free" university be it undergrad, masters or professional school (i.e. med, law)
• no "proper public transportation" (it's not enough that Chicago and NYC have comprehensive systems since they're not 'good enough')
• the government (America is seen as imperialistic)
• Orange Man Bad

I would argue that there isn't that much of a gun "culture" within the States besides guns existing, whether they're obtain legally or illegally. I will say there are gun enthusiasts though. Most gun deaths are self-inflicted. After that it's gang wars. The minority are deranged people gunning down people for either political reason or just because.

As with leftists in the US, Europeans in general are just simply scared of guns. I wouldn't say it's a phobia, but it's definitely a foreign concept to them hence their fascination and disgust with gun ownership in the US. A good number who travel to the US for leisure have visited gun ranges, so I cannot say they are phobic to it. 

I myself do not own a gun simply for the fact I never felt the need to have one, and that guns aren't a social norm in my family. There are a couple friends who at one time did own a gun which wasn't taboo, granted they were middle class and were relatively responsible people. I sorta wanted to follow them so I filled out the paperwork for a FOID card but for whatever reason never completed it.

The absence of universal healthcare really makes Europeans scratch their heads. Even after the explanation that although many are without healthcare, there is Medicaid for the poor and those with limited financial means, Medicare for the elderly and robust healthcare through ones employee. They sometimes then move the goal posts stating that access of decent healthcare through the employee makes the person a slave to the employee system. Oddly enough I find this complaint bizarre since I believe in the saying of "honest day's work for an honest day's pay." Europeans are just too married to the concept of universal healthcare.

I don't care much for the government complaint. Only a handful of non-Americas have truly studied the American government system whereas many of the complaints of those who haven't are just surface complaints anyways. 

The most amusing thing I find that non-Americans take issue with is Trump. Orange Man Bad. If American leftists refuse to understand why someone would for Trump, and then later think his presidency was a stain on everything good in the world, then I can't see why a non-American would have a better understanding of the Trump Era. After all, if the US MSM can paint him as many bad things the likes of BBC will probably double their efforts. Often times non-Americans are equally as daft as the leftist who froths from the mouth when Trump is mentioned. 

One comment by an American who also reflected on what made her irate about non-Americans is when they talked about Trump. "He's not your prime minister." She made a very good point. It's similar to when a Swedish man said he despised the US because of some random law he learned about in Minnesota or Idaho or whatever state it was. The law wasn't even used; it was an old law that no longer recognized. 

Many non-Americans think that the idea of the American Exceptionalism, though somewhat admirable in their eyes, is ultimately misguided. Why? They say that is creates horse blinders on Americans. To be perfectly honest, I don't really see how places like the UK are anymore worldly given their mentality is the complete opposite of the US - "we're not special" to a pessimistic attitude. I suppose this belief is why they have a hard time understanding the MAGA (Make American Great Again) concept. A British woman said that the slogan didn't make sense to her since America wasn't great for everyone in the past. Obviously she has very clue on what she's talking about.

If there's one thing I never bought about Europe is the idea they are wise while America is not. I'm not saying the US is wise, it's just that the whole "European spent hundreds of years solving human issues yet America doesn't listen" is almost pure posturing. All I've experienced was a lot of hot air on their part.

For all its faults, give me America over the UK any day. Its people - heck, even its government. It's not perfect since it's made up of imperfect humans. And yes, I don't mind the religious fervor in the US. 

Why I don't take strict fasting during Lent seriously.

I consider myself a devout Catholic, but I do not see myself as a Catholic who puts one's well-being to side. Modern Church practices have Catholics fasting (2 small meals + 1 big meal) and abstaining from meat on Ash Wednesday and Good Friday, and then the same things for every following Wednesday and Friday until Easter Sunday. A good number of Catholics think this is too lax.

More strict fasting goes vegan (Eastern Rite) plus fasting for 40 days and 40 nights. Some Catholics practice Black Fast were abstaining from food all day along until a sunset for one vegan meal. The following picture is that of a "traditional" fasting calendar for the entire liturgical year -

You might as well be vegan if you're going to do this calendar since almost half of the year you're abstaining from meat (March, April, November, December, June, and August). If most Catholics followed this they'd be probably be underweight and suffer from malnutrition. (This  calendar was made by A Catholic Life -- a Catholic who's quite gung-ho on the traditional ways of Catholic life but then he's also vegetarian in real life and you know I feel about those types of people.) Say good-bye to endurance sports and things like lifting weights for health. Not to mention that hitting your 2k calories per day during Lent will not be met. 

Do Catholics who practice Black Fast for multiple consecutive days, trying to push it to 40 days,  have jobs that require them to exert energy let alone get out much, like adult responsibilities like errands and taking care of kids. That's a serious question. It may get you to a spiritual high, but it totally rejects modern - and sound - science, and commons sense,  where you need sustenance, and adequate sustenance, to function fully. 

I say this with all respect to those who want to take their fasting game to the next level while wanting it to be more prominent in the Catholic world: We're not monks in the desert. I wish that were the case because I'd probably take the extreme form of fasting a little more seriously. I don't mind doing Black Fast as an experiment, but I ain't gonna flex about it if I ever do it for more than a couple of days. Heck, I support bringing back Ember Days.

I've seen myself and my own mother, when deprived of food and only turning to liquids for than five days edge towards going apeshit. The reason being I had a couple of wisdom teeth pulled out a few years ago were I was subjected to only liquids as I abstained from solids for the entire week. By day five my hands were shaking because sipping water and eating yogurt just wasn't enough for my body. Just last year, my dear mother decided to get braces. She was also exercising daily in order to lose and maintain a healthy weight. Due to having braces, the first few weeks of eating was a chore. She was limited to only soft foods, liquids and blending any solids that were too hard for her to chew into a shake. Accompany that with exercising daily she lost weight faster than usual. If this continued her weight would've been dangerously low for her height and age. Thankfully, after a month or so, she gained control of the situation and slowly started to eat solids again. The experience was quite unpleasant for her. 

If there's one thing I'll say that's archaic about in my faith  -- in a bad way -- it's how Catholics tackle fasting not just during Lent but throughout the entire liturgical year. Western Rite or Eastern Rite? Traditional fasting or modern fasting? There's no true set expectations that I know of besides abstaining and fasting on Wednesdays and Fridays during Lent in preparation for Easter Sunday. I'd rather people develop a deep prayer life than admire any extreme form of fasting because "that's what they did in the old day" or "why can't we admire our Orthodox brothers or Eastern Rite Catholics because they're really hardcore about fasting!" Yea, no. Sometimes a thing being old isn't always good, let alone sustainable.

Some take fasting as optional or barely even fast and abstain on Wednesdays or Fridays during Lent. On the other end of the spectrum I've read posts saying they're going to only drink water through the 40 days of Lent as they give a link to some physician or dietitian saying it's totally okay if done "safely." Um, okay.

For those that are looking at Lent and the liturgical calendar to implement a strict fasting practice, do you advocate bringing back social norms like mantillas for women when attending church and suits for men? How about alter rails, no communion via hand, and rood screens? I get the feeling they wouldn't really approve of these resurgences and those advocating for it (for example, me). I wonder the percent who are passionate about strict fasting that prefer the NO or the TLM. It be an interesting survey to unpack. 

Without that said, I am actually going to adopt abstaining from meat on Fridays year round. I think that's a very reasonable practice to take-up (plus it aligns with my current diet of abstaining from meat for health reasons outside of my Catholicism). 

In the meantime I think concepts like Exodus 90 for Lenten preparation is a great way to follow the instructions of the Church for Lent while building a prayer life, implementing health choices (daily exercise, cutting out alcohol for 40 days, cutting out sweets and eating between meals), abstaining from brainless internet use and entertainment, and controlling unnecessary spending (Amazon, Ebay). This, to me, is more relevant to what plagues men and women today. As I said, we're not monks back in the old day living in the desert where we had the whole day to think about our Lord and where strict fasting was conducive to demands of the lives lived. Things have changed.

Sports: Watching Live or Watching on the TV?

Soccer: I'd rather watch it on the television.

Baseball: So much better live.

Softball: Rather be playing it than watching it, but if I'm watching it it's on television. 

Football: Eh, depends. College football is great live. NFL I probably prefer on tv. 

Basketball: Definitely tv for NBA. Live for college basketball. 

Hockey: Live but watching it on television comes a close second.