Eric Peters Auto
The Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation – where in the Constitution does it state the federal government shall have the power to micromanage our comings and goings? – said the other day that people who haven’t given up their cars with engines for devices with a battery are similar to people back in the early 2000s who stubbornly refused to embrace the cell phone future.
Words to that effect.
He actually said more than just that. The money quote is as follows:
“The automotive sector is moving toward EVs, and we can’t pretend otherwise. Sometimes when these debates happen, I feel like it’s the early 2000s and I’m talking to some people who think that we can just have landline phones forever.”
Observe the passive voice masking-over the force behind all of this. The automotive sector is not “moving toward EVs.” It is being pushed toward EVs. He then equates not wanting to be pushed to buy something unwanted as being stupid. There is contempt – and menace – in this statement. 
The irony of it is also lost on the Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation. Most people did get cell phones because – here it comes! – they offered advantages over land lines. These included more convenience and lower costs overall, if you bought a basic model (these currently can be bought for about $50 and a cheap monthly plan with unlimited service can be purchased for about $35). They also could do more things than just a phone, as everyone knows.
People bought them for the same reason most people prefer hamburgers made of beef rather than Impossible Burgers made of . . . well, whatever they make them out of.
It wasn’t necessary for the government to issue a slew of regulations aimed at making land line phones more expensive to manufacture – in order to discourage their use and make cell phones seem less expensive. There was no need to dangle tax kickbacks in the faces of people to get them to make the switch. People just made the switch. Because it made sense to the people who chose to buy cell phones.
That the Biden Thing’s secretary of transportation does not understand this relationship tells us a great deal about the qualifications of this man to be the secretary of transportation.
Or even just a secretary.
He holds the office – and sway over transportation – not because he is competent and well-intended (and never mind that business almost no one ever brings up about where in the Constitution this office is empowered with legitimate authority to even exist) but because he is willing to do whatever is required to push the car-buying public into battery powered devices that are not what the public wants. If that were not so, it would not be necessary to push them. QED.
[…]
Via https://www.ericpetersautos.com/2024/04/04/the-future-of-transportation-in-our-democracy/
The Most Revolutionary Act 
Every few years, I make a new push for public rail transportation. Rail used to be the preferred, and sometimes the only mode for getting from here to there. Cities like New York, despite its other problems, still has excellent public transportation, including buses, subways, and even taxis. The rail infrastructure is already in place elsewhere–it’s used for freight. What is this fascination with the private auto.?
LikeLike
I’m all for public transport, Katherine. Many years ago, I lived in New York City, and the public transport there is brilliant. I don’t need to tell you that the private automobile ha been immensely profitable for the petroleum industry.
LikeLike