which for the current administration, we considered a win. And my key point is if all someone has to give is $35 this year, it might be better spent on efforts to change the current administration rather than funding the BFW win of limiting the cuts to $3mil. (which I would note was done by pulling in federal funding, which is on shaky ground in the House). But even with that win, I am not satisfied that the BFW invested its effort in the most productive course. While Republicans criticize bicycling in general, I have heard they are a bit less resistant to bicycling programs for children, since this doesnt violate their cultural identity. In the recent MacIver screed against SRTS, they singled out walking, not bicycling.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53V35ovZD-s Has the BFW contacted the MacIver Institute to ask them what their issue is with funding for SRTS? Id love to see an article on just what their beef is and how it is grounded in principle. The #1 cause of death for kids is motor vehicle crashes, so I would think such a stat could be used to argue that SRTS is just the kind of personal protection program even limited government types like Ayn Rand should support. http://www.atlassociety.org/objectivist_politics In both civil and criminal realms, law functions by providing clear standards for determining which actions and interactions among people are consistent with individual rights _______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://lists.danenet.org/listinfo.cgi/bikies-danenet.org
