<DIV>After I just wrote: </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>That an act was created to build highways in what was called the "The act was called the 1956 National Interstate and National Defense Highways Act, aka, Public Law 84-627. "</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Hansen ignorantly writes in response:</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"Arnold. Arnold. Arnold. Have you ever heard of the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956"?"</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>YEAH, Hansen, is it also called the "National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956", and Public Law 84627. If you knew what you were taking about, you would at minimum know this basic know fact. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>It used the term "Defense" because that was the excuse used to spend $26 billion of taxpayer dollars to support what people thought at the time, was to the benefit of automobile and the oil industry. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>"The Interstate Highway System was
authorized by the <A class=mw-redirect title="Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal-Aid_Highway_Act_of_1956">Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956</A>, popularly known as the <STRONG><U>National Interstate and Defense Highways Act of 1956</U></STRONG>. It had been lobbied for by major U.S. <A title=Automobile href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile">automobile</A> manufacturers and championed by President <A title="Dwight D. Eisenhower" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwight_D._Eisenhower">Dwight D. Eisenhower</A>, who was influenced by his experiences in 1919 as a young soldier crossing the country (following the route of the <A title="Lincoln Highway" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln_Highway">Lincoln Highway</A>) and his appreciation of the <A title=Germany href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germany">German</A> <A title=Autobahn href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobahn">autobahn</A> network as a necessary component of
a <STRONG><U>national defense system.<BR></U></STRONG></DIV> <DIV><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_Highway_System</A></DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR></DIV> <DIV><BR><BR><B><I>Tom Hansen <idahotom@hotmail.com></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid"> <STYLE> .hmmessage P { margin:0px; padding:0px } body.hmmessage { FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY:Tahoma } </STYLE> "Donovan Arnold" falsely claims:<BR> <BR>"Automobile purchases slowed in the 1950s because of poor road conditions and congestion. So the US government spent $25 billion on the construction of major freeways and highways under the guise of it being part of the escape plan in case of an evacuation in nuclear attack."<BR> <BR>Arnold. Arnold. Arnold. Have you ever
heard of the "Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956"?<BR> <BR>From the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation website at:<BR> <BR><A href="http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm">http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/summer96/p96su10.htm</A><BR> <BR>"By the late 1930s, the pressure for construction of transcontinental superhighways was building. It even reached the White House, where President Franklin D. Roosevelt repeatedly expressed interest in construction of a network of toll superhighways as a way of providing more jobs for people out of work."<BR> <BR>Listen to President Eisenhower discuss what he called the interstate highway system back on October 27, 1958:<BR><A href="http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/oct271958a.mp3">http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/interstate/oct271958a.mp3</A><BR> <BR>"<BR>And the point is: this is not a dream. It is not a visionary project for your consideration. Work is going on right now, and it will go on
more rapidly and more effectively, as each month passes, until the job has been completed . . . ."<BR> <BR>The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 was strongly endorsed by then-chairman of the Subcommittee on Roads in the Committee on Public Works Tennessee Senator Albert Gore Sr., who introduced his own bill extening Eisenhower's bill through Fiscal Year 1961 with an additional $10 billion.<BR><BR>So, you see, Arnold. There is no presence, not even a suggestion, of fear mongering "in case of an evacuation in nuclear attack." This program was designed to simply put people to work.<BR> <BR>OK?<BR> <BR>Tom-Tom Hannie (Tom Hansen)<BR>Moscow, Idaho<BR> <BR>"We're a town of about 23,000 with 10,000 college students. The college students are not very active in local elections (thank goodness!)."<BR> <BR>- Dale Courtney (March 28, 2007)<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR> <BLOCKQUOTE> <HR id=EC_stopSpelling> Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2008 17:18:44 -0700<BR>From:
donovanjarnold2005@yahoo.com<BR>To: krfp@radiofreemoscow.org; vision2020@moscow.com<BR>Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Fw: CRAPO: THIS GLOBAL WARMING BILL DID NOT ADD UP<BR><BR> <DIV>There was a documentary on this from the History Channel. Automobile purchases slowed in the 1950s because of poor road conditions and congestion. So the US government spent $25 billion on the construction of major freeways and highways under the guise of it being part of the escape plan in case of an evacuation in nuclear attack. Like the Autobahn was build in Germany. Of course this was a BS reason, but it was illegal at the time to spend tax payer money to support the private automotive and oil industries. The act was called the 1956 National Interstate and Defense Highways Act, aka, Public Law 84-627. </DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Best Regards,</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>Donovan<BR><BR><B><I>KRFP <krfp@radiofreemoscow.org></I></B> wrote:</DIV> <BLOCKQUOTE class=EC_replbq
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">A better question might be: What happened to mass transit?<BR><BR>I heard a program on KRFP a couple of years ago that was focusing on <BR>what happened to mass transit in this country over the last fifty years <BR>or so.<BR>A coalition made up of oil and rubber companies, and the big three car <BR>manufactures systematically went through most of the large cites in the <BR>nation, purchased the governments, and then rail-roaded through <BR>"privatization" legislation for the cities to sell the transit systems. <BR>They then purchased the transit systems with puppet companies they set <BR>up and intentionally ran them into the ground. All with one goal in <BR>mind: to sell us more cars and make us dependent on them.<BR><BR>I wish I could remember which show so I could point you to it. It was a <BR>well researched story that included names, places, and lots of <BR>examples. True journalism you won't
hear from the media companies owned <BR>by roughly the same small group of people.<BR><BR>Dave Willard<BR><BR><BR>cynthia nichols wrote:<BR>> Ted,<BR>> Very well put--could i just ask ONE question? <BR>><BR>> Whatever happened to the electric car? I saw the movie "who killed the <BR>> electric car?" and just cannot get it out of my head that we HAD the <BR>> answer to at least the auto emissions thing (years ago) and <BR>> someone/something deliberately squashed it. (No, it wasn't "market <BR>> forces at work". People who had them wanted to keep them and weren't <BR>> allowed to). Whatever forces did that , (did Cheney have a hand in it <BR>> ?), whoever was in the (clandenstine) meetings to stop that <BR>> experiment and stop its expansion should have all their assets seized <BR>> and be put in prison to rot. And carmakers should be encouraged and/or <BR>> forced to produce them. <BR>><BR>>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F<BR>><BR>> regards, cynthia<BR>><BR>> On Jun 9, 2008, at 2:10 PM, Ted Moffett wrote:<BR>><BR>>> Saundra and ya'al<BR>>> <BR>>> ...And short term economic pressures that result in ignoring the <BR>>> massive long term economic impacts of climate change don't add up either.<BR>>> <BR>>> Nuclear waste is a major problem, along with the potential for a <BR>>> terrorist attack on nuclear facilities, proliferation of nuclear <BR>>> material, the impacts of uranium mining (nuclear fission based on <BR>>> uranium is, unless I've got the physics wrong, not a renewable <BR>>> resource, even with breader reactors creating more nuclear fuel, <BR>>> given uranium will deplete), the huge costs of nuclear plant <BR>>> construction, the fact that nuclear power plants have a limited life <BR>>> span, then require expensive "moth balling."
<BR>>> <BR>>> However, coal power, 50% of US electric generation, has killed more <BR>>> people by far than nuclear power, with thousands of people with <BR>>> respiratory illness effected. Pollution from China's out of control <BR>>> coal fired plants, with new plants coming on line every week (no <BR>>> joke!), drifts across the Pacific, raising air pollution levels at <BR>>> times in California to a level that gives little room for industries <BR>>> in California to pollute, and not exceed the air quality standards. <BR>>> Mercury emissions from coal fired plants has negative impact on <BR>>> wildlife and humans. And the CO2 emissions from coal are gigantic, <BR>>> and potentially can increase dramatically globally. Coal can be made <BR>>> cleaner, but CO2 sequestration is expensive and currently only an <BR>>> experimental technology. <BR>>> <BR>>> Newer nuclear plant designs are
now safer, and nuclear waste can be <BR>>> reduced with more advanced processes, and stored in a safer form. <BR>>> Consider France, Japan and Sweden. all relying heavily on nuclear <BR>>> power, with a good safety record, and waste management practices that <BR>>> people in those nations accept.<BR>>> <BR>>> I don't like nuclear or coal, but if the choice is between <BR>>> catastrophic climate change from continued massive CO2 emitting coal <BR>>> burning, or massive roll out of nuclear to replace coal, maybe <BR>>> nuclear should be promoted, if it truly replaces coal, and is not <BR>>> just another energy source promoting more energy intensive economic <BR>>> expansion while coal burning continues apace. <BR>>> <BR>>> Of course, this is a false choice, I think, given that there is <BR>>> sufficient wind, solar, geothermal, tidal, wave et.al . <BR>>> renewable energy to supply most
of our needs, even transportation <BR>>> energy for cars and trucks, especially if coupled with conservation <BR>>> and changes in life style. Save oil for powering jets, for example, <BR>>> and other very energy intensive technology, that cannot be powered <BR>>> except by either oil, coal to liquid, or biofuels. We can keep a high <BR>>> standard of living with mostly renewables, in my opinion. Oil should <BR>>> be saved for all the other uses so important in the manufacture of <BR>>> products, plastics, etc.<BR>>> <BR>>> Although I try to remain optimistic about the energy/climate change <BR>>> crisis (both problems must be solved simultaneously), I doubt radical <BR>>> change will happen for decades, perhaps too late to head off extreme <BR>>> climate change. Oil and coal are too entrenched as energy sources <BR>>> given current economic models and life styles to make the switch to
<BR>>> renewables quickly. Here in the US we have a "Saudi Arabia" size oil <BR>>> resource in the oil shale in Colorado, Wyoming and Utah, which is on <BR>>> the drawing board for development, though it is expensive and <BR>>> difficult to process. And though oil is increasing in price, coal <BR>>> remains cheap and abundant. Nations heavily dependent on oil for <BR>>> their economies will resist giving up this income in a transition to <BR>>> renewables. Corporations who are heavily invested in coal and oil <BR>>> will resist the change. High oil prices might just force a switch to <BR>>> coal to liquids to power transportation, and coal is abundant on <BR>>> Earth. This is one reason why high oil prices may not in the long <BR>>> run reduce CO2 emissions globally very much. The CO2 emission <BR>>> potential from coal is greater than from oil.<BR>>> <BR>>> I wish I had a crystal ball to
view our world in 100 years... I <BR>>> suspect our world in 2108 will be far more different than we are <BR>>> different now from 1908.<BR>>> <BR>>> Ted Moffett<BR>>> <BR>>> On 6/9/08, *Saundra Lund* <BR>>> > wrote:<BR>>><BR>>> "Crapo said the bill should have included more incentives for<BR>>> clean-burning energy technology like nuclear power production."<BR>>><BR>>> Just one of MANY reasons I didn't vote Mr. "Let's Pretend Nuclear<BR>>> Waste isn't a Real Problem."<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> Saundra Lund<BR>>> Moscow, ID<BR>>><BR>>> The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good<BR>>> people to do nothing.<BR>>> ~ Edmund Burke<BR>>><BR>>> ***** Original material contained herein is Copyright 2008<BR>>> through life plus 70 years, Saundra Lund. Do not copy, forward,<BR>>> excerpt, or reproduce outside the Vision
2020 forum without the<BR>>> express written permission of the author.*****<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> =======================================================<BR>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.<BR>>> http://www.fsr.net<BR>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com <BR>>> =======================================================<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> =======================================================<BR>>> List services made available by First Step Internet,<BR>>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>>> =======================================================<BR>><BR>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<BR>><BR>> =======================================================<BR>>
List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>> http://www.fsr.net <BR>> mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>> =======================================================<BR><BR>=======================================================<BR>List services made available by First Step Internet, <BR>serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. <BR>http://www.fsr.net <BR>mailto:Vision2020@moscow.com<BR>=======================================================<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><p>