Advertisement
While the comments were fun, it’s a little distressing to see that, even with $3.60-a-gallon gas, some diehard motorists can’t cut the pedal power proponents a little slack.
By the way, Joe will report next week his experiences navigating La Crosse on a two-wheeler both in the Tribune and at www.lacrossetribune.com.
Here’s a sample of the conversation that followed his Bike to Work Week story:
Texican wrote: “I wish we had good bike lanes/trails down here in Texas. I rode some of the La Crosse trails on vacation last August and loved them!”
DJ wrote: “Great! As if the traffic wasn’t screwed up enough with every other street blocked by construction, now we serious motorists have to contend with the tree huggers on two wheels, most of which wouldn’t know a traffic regulation if one ran over them. ERs, stand by.”
daddylonglegs wrote: “The only benefit I see of biking (which I do plenty of) is the exercise benefit. I see little to no benefit of saving money. Bikes aren’t cheap if you want something decent, you have to replace tires/tubes (not cheap), you have to eat extra calories (not cheap). When one does the math, it’s cheaper to drive a scooter than to drive a bicycle. A gallon of gas for $3.60 contains 31,000 calories of energy. There are 750 calories in a foot-long Subway Club. Do the math. The human body, however, is a much more efficient machine when combined with a bicycle. If a person could eat gasoline, you could bike 1,000 miles on 1 gallon of unleaded (1,000 mpg). That’s better then a Honda scooter by about 10 to 1! (Don’t try eating gasoline — it’ll kill you).”
rfield wrote: “DJ, I understand your frustration with construction, but there’s no need to take it out on cyclists. While there are people on bikes who don’t obey the traffic regulations, there are more people in cars who don’t obey the regulations, either. ...”
Wasn’t this supposed to be over already?
Always ready to start a conversation, Jimmy Gillman continues to do so with his blog, “Critic at Large.”
The author of the long-running “Past Picks” column in the Tribune, Jimmy takes a look at politics, pop culture, science — anything in the media — five times a week at www.rivervalleyblogs.com/jgillman.
Here are a few of the dozens of comments that followed his recent observations about the Clinton-Obama race — including the idea they’re both looking worse as time goes on:
Did anyone see their match Monday wrote: “I am surprised there hasn’t been more feedback on this. Hillary (accompanied by Bill) actually squared off in a WWE ring as part of USA Network’s live telecast of ‘Monday Night Raw.’ They were both destroyed post match by the Samoan Bulldozer Umaga.”
Quint wrote: “Whenever I run into one of those poor saps who supports Barack Hussein Obama because they want ‘change,’ I ask what type of change he will provide. It never fails — they are always stuck for an answer.”
Michael Welch: John Adams Versus Thomas Jefferson ... wrote: “Every presidential race comes to this at one time or another, the Jimmy’s-plague-on-both-or-all-your-houses sentiment, and folks start wondering ‘who in the ----’ chose these candidates anyway? ... Obama’s great difficulty in my opinion is, appropriately maybe, what excited people in the first place — his very unformed yet shiny vagueness, his ‘virginity’ so to speak. But campaigners lose their virginities quickly, become querulous and defensive and the campaigns more resemble say the crudities of 1800 than the anointing of 1788 ...”
Harsch wrote: “The Chicago Cubs may well be in first place on May 1, which is cause for alarm for any Cub fan. But the other night, with a four-run lead, they were squandering chance after chance to extend the lead, when in the eighth with two out Ronnie Cedeno of all people hit a grand slam and the Cubs won 8-1. I believe now that they have a good chance to win the division. The Obama equivalent was his ‘racism speech’ in Philadelphia.”
And then there’s evolution ...
Gillman regularly shares links to interesting material from a wide variety of media sources.
Here’s some responses by visitors to www.rivervalleyblogs.com/jgillman to his observations about a National Review review of a film that links evolution with Nazi ideology:
Kenneth W Krause wrote: “Evolution truly is a religion to some people. After all, why take offense regarding a sly, or any other attack for that matter, on a scientific theory?”
Izzy Fabin wrote: “There is a lot of irony in the movie. Credentialed scientists are ostracized by their peers simply for daring to question the merits of evolution as a theory. ...”
The Man wrote: “A person who pushes creationism, in any of its forms, doesn’t belong in a science department of a college. He or she should be asked to leave and go to the theology department ... Creationism isn’t science BECAUSE IT DRAWS ITS CONCLUSIONS FIRST AND TRIES TO FIND EVIDENCE LATER.”
Cage Fighter wrote: “Evolutionists tend to be intellectually dishonest. They cite lack of peer review for other findings. Then, when scientists publish new findings, they (their peers) refuse to review it. It’s a Catch-22. ...
MidwestAtheist wrote: “The movie ‘Expelled’ is full to the gills of lies. Go to www.expelledexposed.com.”
To Midwest Atheist wrote: “Re 1:03 p.m. post. You are joking, right? Ok, my turn. Evolution is full to the gills of lies. See ‘Evolution: The Lie’ by Ken Ham.”
By the numbers
Tribune online editor Marc Wehrs can be reached at mwehrs@www.lacrossetribune.com or (608) 791-8218.
