George Will Continues to Struggle with Facts
05-19-09, 01:10 PM
#3
Biscuit Boy
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Speeenard 'laska
Posts: 1,355
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives.
05-19-09, 01:51 PM
#4
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Beautiful Boise, Idaho
Posts: 191
Bikes: 2000 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Yes, those Democrats only want to control everything everyone does. That's why, with Obama now in power, there is a secret plan to have all Americans fitted with RFID chips under their skin and determine kids' aptitudes and assign future jobs in Kindergarten.
What a clown.
He must have never seen a bicycle on a street while it rode past him in traffic.
What a clown.
He must have never seen a bicycle on a street while it rode past him in traffic.
05-19-09, 04:02 PM
#5
**** that
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: CALI
Posts: 15,402
Mentioned: 151 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1099 Post(s)
Liked 104 Times
in
30 Posts
He's getting nutso in his old age... did you see his article a few weeks back about how jeans were ruining the world (something to that effect)..
Him and his silly bow ties...
Lol.
Him and his silly bow ties...
Lol.
05-19-09, 04:29 PM
#6
Sophomoric Member
Here's an excerpt from Will's Newsweek column. I added emphasis to the part about bikes.
Here is the daily kos response:
https://www.newsweek.com/id/197925
https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...les-with-facts
Originally Posted by George Will
You might think the Department of Transportation would be a refuge from Washington's inundation of painfully earnest and pitilessly incessant talk about "remaking" this (health care, Detroit) and "transforming" that (the energy sector, the planet's temperature). Transportation, after all, is about concrete practicalities—planes, trains and automobiles, steel, asphalt and concrete.
Furthermore, the new transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was until January a Republican congressman practicing militant middle-of-the-roadism. He knows what plays in Peoria, and not just figuratively: He is from there. Peoria is a meatloaf, macaroni-and-cheese, down-to-earth place, home of Caterpillar, the maker of earthmoving machines for building roads, runways, dams and things.
LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a "transformational" administration: "I think we can change people's behavior." Government "promoted driving" by building the Interstate Highway System—"you talk about changing behavior." He says, "People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work." High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is "the wave of the future." And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore.
Riding the aforementioned wave to Portland, which liberals hope is a harbinger of America's future, has long been their aerobic activity of choice. But LaHood is a Republican, for Pete's sake, the party (before it lost its bearings) of "No, we can't" and "Actually, we shouldn't" and "Not so fast" and "Let's think this through." Now he is in full "Yes we can!" mode. Et tu, Ray?
Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program "promoted" driving? Does he think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work? Intercity high-speed rail probably always will be the wave of the future, for cities more than 300 miles apart. And as for Portland ...
Furthermore, the new transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, was until January a Republican congressman practicing militant middle-of-the-roadism. He knows what plays in Peoria, and not just figuratively: He is from there. Peoria is a meatloaf, macaroni-and-cheese, down-to-earth place, home of Caterpillar, the maker of earthmoving machines for building roads, runways, dams and things.
LaHood, however, has been transformed. Indeed, about three bites into lunch, the T word lands with a thump: He says he has joined a "transformational" administration: "I think we can change people's behavior." Government "promoted driving" by building the Interstate Highway System—"you talk about changing behavior." He says, "People are getting out of their cars, they are biking to work." High-speed intercity rail, such as the proposed bullet train connecting Los Angeles and San Francisco, is "the wave of the future." And then, predictably, comes the P word: Look, he says, at Portland, Ore.
Riding the aforementioned wave to Portland, which liberals hope is a harbinger of America's future, has long been their aerobic activity of choice. But LaHood is a Republican, for Pete's sake, the party (before it lost its bearings) of "No, we can't" and "Actually, we shouldn't" and "Not so fast" and "Let's think this through." Now he is in full "Yes we can!" mode. Et tu, Ray?
Where to start? Does LaHood really think Americans were not avid drivers before a government highway program "promoted" driving? Does he think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work? Intercity high-speed rail probably always will be the wave of the future, for cities more than 300 miles apart. And as for Portland ...
Really, what is it about George Will that he acts like such an ass in the face of reality?
In a column that has so much wrong, he writes:
Ygesias:
The rest of that Will column is equally atrocious, so follow the link above for all the gory details. Yglesias concludes:
In a column that has so much wrong, he writes:
Does [Transportation Secretary Roy LHood] think 0.01 percent of Americans will ever regularly bike to work?
Will claims to find it unbelievable that as many as 0.01 percent of Americans would ever bike to work regularly. But rather than tossing off ridicule, he might have looked up the Census Bureau’s statistics on commuting patterns and seen that right now 0.4 percent of commuters normally get to work on bicycles. Now that’s a small percentage. But it’s forty times larger than a percentage that Will deems unrealistically utopian. This would be like saying Dwight Howard is 2 feet tall.
Why does Newsweek want to offer its audience a columnist who wants to write about transportation polic but can’t be bothered to bring any facts or logic to the table?
https://www.newsweek.com/id/197925
https://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...les-with-facts
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
05-19-09, 06:25 PM
#7
Pedaled too far.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: La Petite Roche
Posts: 12,851
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 11 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 7 Times
in
7 Posts
LaHood was a featured speaker at the National Bike Summit. It's good to have a Secretary of Transportation who is squarely behind bicyclists.
__________________
"He who serves all, best serves himself" Jack London
05-19-09, 06:29 PM
#8
In the right lane
George Will, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer need to stay on the right of things. That's their bread and butter. Problem is, the Right these days is in complete disarray. The "ideas" these guys were espousing over the last number of years have been proven a crock of ****.
So now they need to come up with some new ideas. I'm not surprised Will is way low in his estimate of commuting cyclists. He was undoubtedly way off in his estimation of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
As always... in time... reality will catch up with you.
So now they need to come up with some new ideas. I'm not surprised Will is way low in his estimate of commuting cyclists. He was undoubtedly way off in his estimation of "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq.
As always... in time... reality will catch up with you.
05-20-09, 12:06 AM
#9
bragi
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: seattle, WA
Posts: 2,911
Bikes: LHT
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times
in
3 Posts
I was kind of mystified about George Will's column and its total lack of anything that resembles reason, until it occurred to me that he's just currying favor with a Republican Party that has responded to its recent severe ass-whupping by becoming ever more openly Fascist. (It's a political strategy that I sincerely hope meets with the success the GOP so richly deserves.)
05-20-09, 06:57 AM
#10
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
While I'm a cycling enthusiast, part-time bike commuter, and advocate for local bike lane and trail construction and other cycling-friendly things, I mostly agree with Will. I don't see a role in any of that for the national DoT. In my opinion (and Will's), the federal government has no business telling people, through the tax code or massive expenditures on pet projects or any other means, how "dense" their communities should be, how they should get to work, how they should spend their leisure time, etc. Those are choices best left to individuals and local communities.
National government intervention in all areas of our lives leads to homogenization by stifling state and local experimentation and initiative. Some will counter that they'll never get bike lanes, or paths, or some other favorite hobby horse in the places they live unless the feds dictate it. My suggestion is that those folks move to a place that's more aligned with their worldview (e.g. Portland). That's the beauty and genius of federalism; there's someplace for almost everyone. I live in New Orleans. I live here, by choice, because I like the music, food, culture, etc. I don't want to live in Portland or Los Angeles or New York or Peoria (I like to visit all those places, though, except Peoria, to which I've never been).
George Will made an argument. A reasoned counter argument is certainly possible, but attacks of the ad hominem (e.g. "nutso") and ad hitlerum (e.g. ...ever more openly fascist") variety are not arguments and those attacks degrade those that make them.
National government intervention in all areas of our lives leads to homogenization by stifling state and local experimentation and initiative. Some will counter that they'll never get bike lanes, or paths, or some other favorite hobby horse in the places they live unless the feds dictate it. My suggestion is that those folks move to a place that's more aligned with their worldview (e.g. Portland). That's the beauty and genius of federalism; there's someplace for almost everyone. I live in New Orleans. I live here, by choice, because I like the music, food, culture, etc. I don't want to live in Portland or Los Angeles or New York or Peoria (I like to visit all those places, though, except Peoria, to which I've never been).
George Will made an argument. A reasoned counter argument is certainly possible, but attacks of the ad hominem (e.g. "nutso") and ad hitlerum (e.g. ...ever more openly fascist") variety are not arguments and those attacks degrade those that make them.
05-20-09, 07:27 AM
#11
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Beautiful Boise, Idaho
Posts: 191
Bikes: 2000 GT Outpost Trail
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Kurt,
As far as I know, the federal government doesn't and can't dictate what population density cities must build to and what transportation methods people use to get around.
What the federal government currently does is subsidize local governments with transportation and development dollars. The feds also put restrictions on what that money's spent on. As far as I know, the local governments are perfectly welcome to turn the money down if they don't like the strings attached.
As far as I know, the federal government doesn't and can't dictate what population density cities must build to and what transportation methods people use to get around.
What the federal government currently does is subsidize local governments with transportation and development dollars. The feds also put restrictions on what that money's spent on. As far as I know, the local governments are perfectly welcome to turn the money down if they don't like the strings attached.
05-20-09, 07:48 AM
#12
surly old man
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Carlisle, PA
Posts: 3,392
Bikes: IRO Mark V, Karate Monkey half fat, Trek 620 IGH, Cannondale 26/24 MTB, Amp Research B3, and more.
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 46 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 42 Times
in
18 Posts
I am a flower-toting pinko liberal, and I am pleased that cycling brings us to the same conclusion on this.
Fight the power, man
jim
Fight the power, man
jim
__________________
Cross Check Nexus7, IRO Mark V, Trek 620 Nexus7, Karate Monkey half fat, IRO Model 19 fixed, Amp Research B3, Surly 1x1 half fat fixed, and more...
--------------------------
SB forever
Cross Check Nexus7, IRO Mark V, Trek 620 Nexus7, Karate Monkey half fat, IRO Model 19 fixed, Amp Research B3, Surly 1x1 half fat fixed, and more...
--------------------------
SB forever
05-20-09, 08:44 AM
#13
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 411
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
its pretty clear that unlimited suburban sprawl is not possible. thus the government is attempting to keep a serious crisis from occurring by attempting to shift development. they aren't on a power trip, rather they are elected to guide policy and they are attempting to promote policies that they feel are best.
05-20-09, 08:56 AM
#14
Sophomoric Member
no, George Will told some lies. If you don't like it, move to Time.
__________________
"Think Outside the Cage"
05-20-09, 10:47 AM
#15
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Kurt,
As far as I know, the federal government doesn't and can't dictate what population density cities must build to and what transportation methods people use to get around.
What the federal government currently does is subsidize local governments with transportation and development dollars. The feds also put restrictions on what that money's spent on. As far as I know, the local governments are perfectly welcome to turn the money down if they don't like the strings attached.
As far as I know, the federal government doesn't and can't dictate what population density cities must build to and what transportation methods people use to get around.
What the federal government currently does is subsidize local governments with transportation and development dollars. The feds also put restrictions on what that money's spent on. As far as I know, the local governments are perfectly welcome to turn the money down if they don't like the strings attached.
I think your second paragraph makes my point rather than refuting it. The feds take such a large bite in taxes that it's tough for states to justify the higher taxes that would allow them to forgo federal transportation funding. The result is an ever more homogenous country.
05-20-09, 11:00 AM
#16
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Several people on this thread have asserted that Will is lying in this column but I haven't seen any examples. Can you share any?
If it's his assertion that less than 0.01 per cent of people will ever bike to work is what peopled are referring to, I think "lie" is a bit too strong a word. Uninformed or engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Yes, almost certainly, and probably the former as most people can't imagine commuting by bike to be anything other than a fringe activity. But, he certainly didn't seem to be trying to make some kind of detailed statistical argument from a knowingly false position.
If it's something other than that that he's lying about, I'd like to know.
If it's his assertion that less than 0.01 per cent of people will ever bike to work is what peopled are referring to, I think "lie" is a bit too strong a word. Uninformed or engaging in a bit of hyperbole? Yes, almost certainly, and probably the former as most people can't imagine commuting by bike to be anything other than a fringe activity. But, he certainly didn't seem to be trying to make some kind of detailed statistical argument from a knowingly false position.
If it's something other than that that he's lying about, I'd like to know.
05-20-09, 11:54 AM
#17
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Seville, Spain
Posts: 4,403
Bikes: Brompton M6R, mountain bikes, Circe Omnis+ tandem
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 146 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 6 Times
in
5 Posts
They do try to at least influence and, some would say, dictate things like population density by exterting strong control over most of the public housing and the policy surrounding it.
I think your second paragraph makes my point rather than refuting it. The feds take such a large bite in taxes that it's tough for states to justify the higher taxes that would allow them to forgo federal transportation funding. The result is an ever more homogenous country.
I think your second paragraph makes my point rather than refuting it. The feds take such a large bite in taxes that it's tough for states to justify the higher taxes that would allow them to forgo federal transportation funding. The result is an ever more homogenous country.
We are now faced with a dire situation (peak oil, dependance on imported oil, global warming...) that requires, once again, strong action by the federal government. We need to work together on this as a nation. Having different states pulling in opposite directions is not in our national interest.
Last edited by Ekdog; 05-20-09 at 01:08 PM. Reason: misspelling
05-20-09, 01:05 PM
#18
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2009
Location: New Orleans, LA
Posts: 81
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Is "an ever more homogenous country" necessarily a bad thing? I'm sure you don't pine for "the good ol' days" when blacks were denied their civil rights and were barred from voting in the South. It took action by the federal government, i.e. the passage of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and the enforcement of these laws by the Johnson administration to put an end to the situation. We were certainly more homogeneous then, and "states' rights" were used as code words by defenders of segregation and the status quo.
We are now faced with a dire situation (peak oil, dependence on imported oil, global warming...) that requires, once again, strong action by the federal government. We need to work together on this as a nation. Having different states pulling in opposite directions is not in our national interest.
We are now faced with a dire situation (peak oil, dependence on imported oil, global warming...) that requires, once again, strong action by the federal government. We need to work together on this as a nation. Having different states pulling in opposite directions is not in our national interest.
By the way, I don't think we were at all "more homogenous then". State positions on civil and voting rights varied widely from region to region and even within regions. In the case of basic human rights and freedoms the lack of homogenity was a bad thing.
I don't view different states taking different approaches to things as "pulling in opposite directions". I think different approaches to similar problems result from a variety of factors including local conditions (weather, terrain, population density, etc.) and traditions; one size does not fit all. More importantly, though, varied approaches result from honest differences in opinion about how to attack a certain problem. We're more likely to end up with a good universal solution through the experimentation that federalism engenders than through federal fiat (which often results in unintended negative consequences like the SUV being birthed by CAFE standards).
We'll just have to, I suspect, agree to disagree on how dire the situations you mentioned are (anhropogenic climate change and peak oil). I think they're substantially overblown but that if I'm wrong technological adaptation is more likely to be the solution than forced reductions in consumption.
05-20-09, 03:40 PM
#19
Biker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917
Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
Will's articles always creep me out. I think it is that the falsehoods are mostly unstated or ambiguous. I once watched a friend's brother and friends get stoned on cannabis. He and his buddies started talking the way Will writes, a bunch of thoughts expressed with little coherence and less substance. But the stoners thought they sounded good and laughed at each others absurdities.
"Riding the aforementioned wave to Portland, which liberals hope is a harbinger of America's future, has long been their aerobic activity of choice." In just one sentence, so pregnant with crap, where do you begin debunking? Its really meaningless. He uses numbers as imprecisely as he uses words. The problem with the 0.01 percent statement isn't that it is off by a factor of 40, it is the unquestioning attitude that Americans won't use other modes so don't bother building infrastructure. I sat in on community meetings for transportation projects and engineers- who should be more precise with numbers - said things like "No matter how many non-car transportation facilities are built only 1% of people will use them, therefore it makes no sense to spend 0.05% of the budget on non-car facilities. So, we won't accommodate bike and pedestrian access to those subway stations." I think the idea that George Will's incoherent world view has seeped into important decisions is what creeps me out about his essays.
"Riding the aforementioned wave to Portland, which liberals hope is a harbinger of America's future, has long been their aerobic activity of choice." In just one sentence, so pregnant with crap, where do you begin debunking? Its really meaningless. He uses numbers as imprecisely as he uses words. The problem with the 0.01 percent statement isn't that it is off by a factor of 40, it is the unquestioning attitude that Americans won't use other modes so don't bother building infrastructure. I sat in on community meetings for transportation projects and engineers- who should be more precise with numbers - said things like "No matter how many non-car transportation facilities are built only 1% of people will use them, therefore it makes no sense to spend 0.05% of the budget on non-car facilities. So, we won't accommodate bike and pedestrian access to those subway stations." I think the idea that George Will's incoherent world view has seeped into important decisions is what creeps me out about his essays.
05-20-09, 03:45 PM
#20
biking and fighting!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 247
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
That's absurd. As a gun-toting libertarian conservative, one of the main reasons I love to live car free is it REDUCES the supervision and control of government. I need no registration, no license, no nothing. I am burdened by almost no rules, and cops never bother me. I can do whatever I want, go wherever I want, whenever I want. No streets are closed, no barricade effective. The state has almost no control over me on a bike, and I have no need for them. It's real freedom.
05-20-09, 03:50 PM
#21
Biker
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: DC
Posts: 1,917
Bikes: one Recumbent and one Utility Bike
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times
in
0 Posts
I don't really describe myself as libertarian (although I do have certain libertarian sympathies) and I'm certainly not a conservative, but this paragraph sums up why it has never made sense to me why so many libertarians and conservatives are so anti-bike. There's nothing inherently left-wing about the technology.
05-20-09, 05:26 PM
#22
In the right lane
https://www.cjr.org/the_observatory/t...ill_affair.php
https://scienceblogs.com/intersection...ic_to_my_e.php
Then his view of hybrids:
https://www.ecoautoninja.com/eco-hybr...e-prius-13212/
05-20-09, 07:45 PM
#23
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
From the article:
" Americans by the scores of millions have been happily trading distance for space, living farther from their jobs in order to enjoy ample backyards and other aspects of low-density living. And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America's "automobile culture," many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives. Drivers moving around where and when they please? Without government supervision? Depriving themselves and others of communitarian moments on mass transit? No good could come of this.<<<<<<
Therefore, it's better that the government subvert their agenda building billions of dollars in massive highways, roads and bridges? George prefers that I'm supervised into into a life of motor transport? Depriving me of communitarian moments on transit? No good could come of this!
" Americans by the scores of millions have been happily trading distance for space, living farther from their jobs in order to enjoy ample backyards and other aspects of low-density living. And long before climate change became another excuse for disparaging America's "automobile culture," many liberal intellectuals were bothered by the automobile. It subverted their agenda of expanding government—meaning their—supervision of other people's lives. Drivers moving around where and when they please? Without government supervision? Depriving themselves and others of communitarian moments on mass transit? No good could come of this.<<<<<<
Therefore, it's better that the government subvert their agenda building billions of dollars in massive highways, roads and bridges? George prefers that I'm supervised into into a life of motor transport? Depriving me of communitarian moments on transit? No good could come of this!
05-20-09, 08:07 PM
#24
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 7,143
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 261 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 11 Times
in
10 Posts
We'll just have to, I suspect, agree to disagree on how dire the situations you mentioned are (anhropogenic climate change and peak oil). I think they're substantially overblown but that if I'm wrong technological adaptation is more likely to be the solution than forced reductions in consumption.
So now we are going in the other direction of forced reductions in consumption by requiring our bankrupt auto companies to produce fuel efficient cars. The notion that supply side economics would deliver the cheap oil that would enable inexpensive motoring forever are over.
You got to hand it to George Bush. Under his leadership, the price of gas went so high, thousands of more bicycle commuters are hitting the streets than ever. Who ever heard of a hybrid car during the Clinton administration? Nah, it took good old George to really mess things up for all these developments to come about!
05-20-09, 08:28 PM
#25
Senior Member
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 7,274
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 2 Times
in
2 Posts
Yeah it has never made sense to me why so many who label themselves liberal think that being pro-bike is a liberal thing. I was at a party where two bike advocates where upset that a person who had worked for a republican organization had applied for a job at whatever pro-bike group they worked for. They thought a republican couldn't be an effective bike advocate.
Demerits to those two advocates who want to keep their base small and comfy.