>>again makes me a bit uneasy. I'd bet money you would support force feeding mass transit on the population. Among other things that the especially enlightened thought were for our own good. And thus justified despite the Constitution. <<

Where I live, in Seattle, we have the second or third ranked traffic congestion in the country. It's bad round the clock. You can set out any time of the day or night and run smack into gridlock. Probably because we're hemmed in by water on so many sides and have two "floating bridges" in our Interstate system feeding the main arterial highways. One car goes down on a bridge and bang: instant parking lot.

The solution by our spineless city, county, and regional planners seems to be to throw more bones to the cement contractors and propose more lanes, more pavement, more freeways. All this in liveable, laughable Seattle.

I'd recommend "The Power Broker" to you; Robert Caro's brilliant social biography of Robert Moses and history of the development of NYC's roadway system. Even back in the 1940's and '50's people were beginning toi find that the adage "if you build it they will come" was true. As fast as they could build Manhattan's freeways they clogged up with cars. The solution? Why, build more freeways of course!

So when you say someone is "forcefeeding" mass transit on the public I'd only ask that you ask yourself "who is forcefeeding the present individual car ownership, three car (one Humvee) family, and more and more roads on the public model?". Somebody has some deep interest in maintaining the status quo. Who do you suppose it is?

>>The war is stupid. Apart from politics and of course Jesus, we'd probably find each other quite agreeable. Sorry if it seem like I was sniping. <<

I don't think you're sniping. I think you have strong opinions like me. I don't agree with you on several things but that doesn't mean I find you disagreeable.