I just love that title.
If only the campaign hadn’t ordered shirts that (apparently) look like Redd-Up crew shirts.
I was going to post about the many way to offer an apology. There is a good lesson from the movie Speed (in my opinion), but I think I will hold off.
So apparently it is coming down to how credible Jeff Koch is when he says he didn’t know something. The latest issues involve a former political rival and a call a Koch staffer made from her office (doesn’t seem too important) and the fact that his campaign accepted contributions from corporations (I didn’t know that was illegal, but I guess its not surprising). The second issue could get him knocked of the ballot.
I was surprised at the difference in coverage of ReddUpgate between the Trib and the PG. In the PG Koch seemed defiant, where the Trib had quotes that seemed to agree the workers in the shirts were in the wrong. I’m just saying.
So anyway, why did Jeff Koch’s campaign order shirts in a colour so like the Redd up crew, unless they planned for Mr. Sansone and others to wear them? Did Jeff Koch have any input on the colour and style of shirt? Obviously this shirt business has been in the works for a while, so Mr. Koch’s choices are to appear incompetent (not knowing anything about any shirts) or to admit he was in on the whole thing.
I don’t know how fast the state will act on the campaign contribution thing, but if the PG report is correct, this issue can only end badly for Mr. Koch. How bad remains to be seen. Mr. Koch's choices are similar, say he knew nothing about his campaign's finances or admit he knew and did nothing.
Wednesday, May 09, 2007
Redd shirts
So the Koch t-shirt scandal has got me thinking. First, I don’t even know if the Dowd or Bodack campaign’s even have t-shirts. I never get aht. The blue and lime green colour scheme of the Dowd campaign…well, I’ve worn worse running. The red colour scheme for the Bodack campaign … red shirts … man, those guys never survive when they beam down to the planet.
I commented on the t-shirt issue over at the Bur(gh) repor(t). Four guys got suspended for five days for wearing the Koch t-shirts while working for the city; (I assume) one of the four guys was Ray Sansone, apparently Jeff Koch’s campaign treasurer. The other three were Sansone’s co-workers and who knows what to the Koch campaign. Maybe the other three knew something like this blow up could happen (presumably Sansone should have known), but if I were Bruce Kraus, I’d kick maybe a grand each to these guys from his campaign fund, to compensate these Redd shirts for being the Mayor’s sacrifices to his new found religion of ethics.
Could Jeff Koch be telling the truth when he says he knew nothing about it? Sure could, it could have be a spur of the moment thing his campaign treasurer did with three co-workers that morning (”let’s wear these shirts”). Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if it hadn’t gone on for days, and only got noticed yesterday. Mr. Kraus clearly wants Mr. Koch to admit wrong doing here, like Dr. Dowd wants Mr. Bodack to admit wrong doing about his finances. Neither one seems real likely.
Meanwhile, the Mayor complained in strong terms about these guys behavior ("unethical, inexcusable and unacceptable."), and wants the ethics board to look at their behavior. Anything else that might be worth looking into, Mr. Ravenstahl? Photo’s used by the city and your campaign, a gift to your campaign (and apparently the city, and in what order?), including the canonical Redd Up image, arms akimbo. Any more Redd Herrings for the ethics board? If the Mayor sets the agenda for the ethics board, any pretense of independency is out the window.
Please, someone talk to this boy mayor before he … breathes again. He’s quoted as saying he is “now more focusing on the government aspect of my job and the neighborhood aspect of rebuilding communities” and then in the next paragraph he is going to a cocktail party and a pirates games where I guess he is supposed to be doing these things (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07126/783856-181.stm). He needs help with his press exposure or at some point, he may well get himself in trouble, where the best he can hope for is to end up as popular as Tom Murphy.
I commented on the t-shirt issue over at the Bur(gh) repor(t). Four guys got suspended for five days for wearing the Koch t-shirts while working for the city; (I assume) one of the four guys was Ray Sansone, apparently Jeff Koch’s campaign treasurer. The other three were Sansone’s co-workers and who knows what to the Koch campaign. Maybe the other three knew something like this blow up could happen (presumably Sansone should have known), but if I were Bruce Kraus, I’d kick maybe a grand each to these guys from his campaign fund, to compensate these Redd shirts for being the Mayor’s sacrifices to his new found religion of ethics.
Could Jeff Koch be telling the truth when he says he knew nothing about it? Sure could, it could have be a spur of the moment thing his campaign treasurer did with three co-workers that morning (”let’s wear these shirts”). Actually, I wouldn’t be surprised if it hadn’t gone on for days, and only got noticed yesterday. Mr. Kraus clearly wants Mr. Koch to admit wrong doing here, like Dr. Dowd wants Mr. Bodack to admit wrong doing about his finances. Neither one seems real likely.
Meanwhile, the Mayor complained in strong terms about these guys behavior ("unethical, inexcusable and unacceptable."), and wants the ethics board to look at their behavior. Anything else that might be worth looking into, Mr. Ravenstahl? Photo’s used by the city and your campaign, a gift to your campaign (and apparently the city, and in what order?), including the canonical Redd Up image, arms akimbo. Any more Redd Herrings for the ethics board? If the Mayor sets the agenda for the ethics board, any pretense of independency is out the window.
Please, someone talk to this boy mayor before he … breathes again. He’s quoted as saying he is “now more focusing on the government aspect of my job and the neighborhood aspect of rebuilding communities” and then in the next paragraph he is going to a cocktail party and a pirates games where I guess he is supposed to be doing these things (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07126/783856-181.stm). He needs help with his press exposure or at some point, he may well get himself in trouble, where the best he can hope for is to end up as popular as Tom Murphy.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Where's the information?
So I got a press release this morning from the Dowd Campaign, that Pat Dowd was informed Friday that he had under paid his city taxes by a couple of bucks, and he fixed that today. Apparently he missed around 70 bucks of income. I've seen enough W-2's to not be surprised. Helpful hit, for example, the city is allowed to go by reported state income on W-2’s if different (more) from reported city income. This sort of thing happens surprisingly often, one of the reasons why I think you should always try to get your taxes done somewhere, and ask what’s going on while they are being done. Of course, the first question you should ask is how experienced the person doing your taxes is, and hold out for at least a couple of years of doing taxes. But since single people with incomes under $25,000 can have taxes done for free at a VITA site (and couples or families with incomes under I think 37,000), there’s *little* excuse for not having them done. If you think you owe money (which can include every person who is single, childless, and not taking classes or with a student loan), do them early so you get your payment together by April 15th (yes, you can file in January and wait to pay till April).
I think this is supposed to remind us that Councilman Bodack has not released his finances yet. Or more specifically, the City Clerk has not completed doing so. Not that anyone was asking the Councilman to release tax information, but the city stuff still has not been *reported* as surfacing anywhere. Councilman Bodack was last reported as having asked the Clerk’s office to provide the requested information. I, for one, can see why there might be problem’s getting the information out, depended on how it has been stored. But this whole thing is an exercise in suggesting that, going forward, public records should be made more public, more accessible to the public. Not that its any one councilperson’s or clerk’s fault or that there is anything criminal going on. In fact, Len Bodack’s expense information is one of two on the council website that list totals by year and category; two of the other seven are less complete and five have nothing. It’s just that the technology exists to cheaply provide even more information to the public, so maybe we should use it to make sure there is no incentive to abuse the system.
I think this is supposed to remind us that Councilman Bodack has not released his finances yet. Or more specifically, the City Clerk has not completed doing so. Not that anyone was asking the Councilman to release tax information, but the city stuff still has not been *reported* as surfacing anywhere. Councilman Bodack was last reported as having asked the Clerk’s office to provide the requested information. I, for one, can see why there might be problem’s getting the information out, depended on how it has been stored. But this whole thing is an exercise in suggesting that, going forward, public records should be made more public, more accessible to the public. Not that its any one councilperson’s or clerk’s fault or that there is anything criminal going on. In fact, Len Bodack’s expense information is one of two on the council website that list totals by year and category; two of the other seven are less complete and five have nothing. It’s just that the technology exists to cheaply provide even more information to the public, so maybe we should use it to make sure there is no incentive to abuse the system.
Friday, May 04, 2007
What is Cognitive Dissonance in Pittsburgh
Over at the Burgh Report (which I like to pronounce in a Colbert fashion, http://burghreport.blogspot.com/) something fairly extraordinary has gone on in the last week. A post with Councilman Bodack’s name in the title (“Bodack: I'm So Excited ... I'm So Scared”, some kind of reference to “Saved by the Bell”) has had 113 comments since Tuesday, most notably (in my opinion) several by Patrick Dowd late at night. After all, you can’t knock on doors at 11:00pm, so you might as well cruise the blogs. Dr Dowd’s willingness to debate matters in this race extended itself to an exchange between him and a school crossing guard.
To back up a little, I remember there was an issue so time ago about the crossing guards, that the school board decided it couldn’t afford them. As I remember, the city picked up the tab. According to the guard on the Burgh Report, (I think) the school board still has not picked up the tab again. It is possible (and now I am speculating) the city is paying the crossing guards as 1099 contractors, meaning no health benefits and a tax nightmare. Regardless of what the situation is exactly, I am not surprised that the crossing guards would have some antipathy for a school board member running for office.
I want to talk a bit about Dr Dowd’s views on anonymous commenter’s, but I think I will save that for another time. What’s interesting to me about the crossing guard commenter was how hostile she seemed to Dr Dowd. She is not *too* hostile to other commenter’s (including myself), taking a “you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe” attitude. But she almost seemed to have a “Perry Mason” type attitude toward Dr Dowd, that if she could list her accusations to him, in a public forum, he would admit “his lies” and … I don’t know, quit the race, stop teaching children and go work in a leper colony as penance.
I don’t want to be unnecessarily snarky or mean, but our crossing guard here is engaging in what *I think* can only be described as classic cognitive dissonance. While Dr Dowd might not be totally polite (really wanting her to reveal her identity), he is at least was pretty polite. She was not rude per se, but she is willing to ascribe negative connotations to everything he says, and everything said about him. What I think she believes:
*If Dr Dowd has someone’s support, it’s because they’ve been fooled or because they are rich. Conversely those who oppose Dr Dowd do so because they support working class people. Dr Dowd’s talk about transparency is a cynical attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, to accuse Councilman Bodack of hiding things when it is Dr Dowd who has much to hide.*
You’ve got to give both of them credit for talking, but unfortunately it was more at each other than to each other. That is the thing about cognitive dissonance, it is filtered listening, a closed but active mind. The only thing that might have helped the situation a little was if Dr Dowd had talked a little about what he wants to do regarding the crossing guard situation. Maybe it was an act, but to me the crossing guard’s pain when she was talking to “Agent Ska” was fairly obvious; she is very unhappy about her job situation (and who can blame her). It is unfortuanate that she seems to want to place all the on Dr Dowd.
I don’t know how this election is going to go, how this race is going to go. Councilman Boadack won last time in a special election and a primary in a three way split, by just a few votes. But that was with a competitive mayor’s race to spark interest. Councilman Bodack has followed what is probably the best strategy for him, hunker down, no debates, don't even acknowledge the competition much, run some district events and rely on the party to get out the faithful, in a race that could have a low turnout. Every person that Dr Dowd is able to convince to vote is a plus for him, but it remains to be seen whether he knocked on enough doors.
I do think, for whatever warts he might have, whatever mis-steps he might have made on the school board, the city needs Patrick Dowd to inject some ideas (along with Bill Peduto) into council. And I say that recognizing that Len Bodack has done nothing obviously wrong as a councilman.
Hopefully there are not too many people who are looking at the race in a cognitively dissonant way.
To back up a little, I remember there was an issue so time ago about the crossing guards, that the school board decided it couldn’t afford them. As I remember, the city picked up the tab. According to the guard on the Burgh Report, (I think) the school board still has not picked up the tab again. It is possible (and now I am speculating) the city is paying the crossing guards as 1099 contractors, meaning no health benefits and a tax nightmare. Regardless of what the situation is exactly, I am not surprised that the crossing guards would have some antipathy for a school board member running for office.
I want to talk a bit about Dr Dowd’s views on anonymous commenter’s, but I think I will save that for another time. What’s interesting to me about the crossing guard commenter was how hostile she seemed to Dr Dowd. She is not *too* hostile to other commenter’s (including myself), taking a “you believe what you believe and I believe what I believe” attitude. But she almost seemed to have a “Perry Mason” type attitude toward Dr Dowd, that if she could list her accusations to him, in a public forum, he would admit “his lies” and … I don’t know, quit the race, stop teaching children and go work in a leper colony as penance.
I don’t want to be unnecessarily snarky or mean, but our crossing guard here is engaging in what *I think* can only be described as classic cognitive dissonance. While Dr Dowd might not be totally polite (really wanting her to reveal her identity), he is at least was pretty polite. She was not rude per se, but she is willing to ascribe negative connotations to everything he says, and everything said about him. What I think she believes:
*If Dr Dowd has someone’s support, it’s because they’ve been fooled or because they are rich. Conversely those who oppose Dr Dowd do so because they support working class people. Dr Dowd’s talk about transparency is a cynical attempt to pull the wool over our eyes, to accuse Councilman Bodack of hiding things when it is Dr Dowd who has much to hide.*
You’ve got to give both of them credit for talking, but unfortunately it was more at each other than to each other. That is the thing about cognitive dissonance, it is filtered listening, a closed but active mind. The only thing that might have helped the situation a little was if Dr Dowd had talked a little about what he wants to do regarding the crossing guard situation. Maybe it was an act, but to me the crossing guard’s pain when she was talking to “Agent Ska” was fairly obvious; she is very unhappy about her job situation (and who can blame her). It is unfortuanate that she seems to want to place all the on Dr Dowd.
I don’t know how this election is going to go, how this race is going to go. Councilman Boadack won last time in a special election and a primary in a three way split, by just a few votes. But that was with a competitive mayor’s race to spark interest. Councilman Bodack has followed what is probably the best strategy for him, hunker down, no debates, don't even acknowledge the competition much, run some district events and rely on the party to get out the faithful, in a race that could have a low turnout. Every person that Dr Dowd is able to convince to vote is a plus for him, but it remains to be seen whether he knocked on enough doors.
I do think, for whatever warts he might have, whatever mis-steps he might have made on the school board, the city needs Patrick Dowd to inject some ideas (along with Bill Peduto) into council. And I say that recognizing that Len Bodack has done nothing obviously wrong as a councilman.
Hopefully there are not too many people who are looking at the race in a cognitively dissonant way.
Thursday, May 03, 2007
D'oh!
Okay, so my math skills are not what I hoped they would be. $1800 divided by 12 is $150 a month, not $300. D'oh. And I am sure, just like the state legislature, city council can authorize a flat reimbursement.
But I want to find out for sure.
And maybe lobby for a change.
The other expense reports on the council website don't show the $1800 mileage reimbursement. I remember seeing that Bill Peduto had one year of over a thousand dollars, out of the four on his expense report. Like he is asking to be reimbursed for only for actual mileage.
Look, I realize Councilman Bodack has a district office, and most Councilpersons don't (I believe). But should that be an excuse to take the maximum in mileage money?
But I want to find out for sure.
And maybe lobby for a change.
The other expense reports on the council website don't show the $1800 mileage reimbursement. I remember seeing that Bill Peduto had one year of over a thousand dollars, out of the four on his expense report. Like he is asking to be reimbursed for only for actual mileage.
Look, I realize Councilman Bodack has a district office, and most Councilpersons don't (I believe). But should that be an excuse to take the maximum in mileage money?
Read my previous post too!
I don’t want to distract from my previous post, but a couple of things came up. First, in Early Returns there was mention of various endorsements. Specifically the endorsements of the Pennsylvania League of Young Voters Political Action Committee. Conspicuous in its absence (to me) was any mention of District 7. I looked for the PLYV website, and turns out they had endorsed Dr Patrick Dowd. So I emailed Rich Lord, who did get back to me and thanked me, mentioned he didn’t work on this entry, but didn’t really seem interested in doing anything about it (probably has a lot to do, and I didn't say I had been to the PLYV site). I got a second email from Mr. Lord almost immediately which said this:
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Ed, I just got the below.
Rich Lord
Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
rlord@post-gazette.com
Campaign journal at http://www.post-gazette.com/earlyreturns/
I dont know if its possible to correct the Early Returns blog, but we also endorsed Patrick Dowd for city council district 7. Unfortunately it seems you got one of the Press Releases that made it out without his name on it. I caught it, but only after some went out. I thought I had corrected it, but I guess I missed you. He is a major part of ourPAC endorsement slate so I'm hoping you can somehow correct it. I'd hate for him to suffer because I goofed. --
Jennifer England
Director of Communications
Pittsburgh League of Young Voters
………………………………………………………………………………………….
(problems with spacing copying from Word into Blogger)
I left Jennifer’s phone off (that’s been an issue recently). I don’t think I am violating anyone’s privacy by reprinting the email. Now, as of noonish Early Returns had not been amended or edited. I think the PiGgy (I have heard PG staffers refer to it as that) could edit an online blog, perhaps they plan to put in an entry tomorrow.
The second thing I have been thinking about is the City Paper interview with Councilman Bodack. They caught him in the middle of a ten mile run on the treadmill? Granted, his pace could not have been too high or the interview would not have been possible. But several years ago I ran a few marathons (three or four?), so I have to say good for you, Councilman. Ten miles is a very respectable distance, and if you do that regularly, you should be commended not only for taking care of yourself, but for giving your district that much better service by being in good health.
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
Ed, I just got the below.
Rich Lord
Staff Writer, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
rlord@post-gazette.com
Campaign journal at http://www.post-gazette.com/earlyreturns/
I dont know if its possible to correct the Early Returns blog, but we also endorsed Patrick Dowd for city council district 7. Unfortunately it seems you got one of the Press Releases that made it out without his name on it. I caught it, but only after some went out. I thought I had corrected it, but I guess I missed you. He is a major part of ourPAC endorsement slate so I'm hoping you can somehow correct it. I'd hate for him to suffer because I goofed. --
Jennifer England
Director of Communications
Pittsburgh League of Young Voters
………………………………………………………………………………………….
(problems with spacing copying from Word into Blogger)
I left Jennifer’s phone off (that’s been an issue recently). I don’t think I am violating anyone’s privacy by reprinting the email. Now, as of noonish Early Returns had not been amended or edited. I think the PiGgy (I have heard PG staffers refer to it as that) could edit an online blog, perhaps they plan to put in an entry tomorrow.
The second thing I have been thinking about is the City Paper interview with Councilman Bodack. They caught him in the middle of a ten mile run on the treadmill? Granted, his pace could not have been too high or the interview would not have been possible. But several years ago I ran a few marathons (three or four?), so I have to say good for you, Councilman. Ten miles is a very respectable distance, and if you do that regularly, you should be commended not only for taking care of yourself, but for giving your district that much better service by being in good health.
Wednesday, May 02, 2007
Something stuck out on the spending report ...
I happen to have worked in Accounts Payable in the past, and still sort of do. In AP “mileage” expense is defined as traveling you do for work, in your own car. Usually that means trips for meetings or conferences. You are reimbursed by your company with tax free dollars because the Feds think it is a good thing to encourage business. The amount that the Feds will let businesses reimburse is set by the Feds and businesses are supposed to use that amount because the reimbursements are untaxed. The amounts set for reimbursements vary every year, based on the cost of gas. And the Feds forbid reimbursing commuting mileage. I guess they figure everybody is in the same boat with commuting; you gotta get to work to get paid. Reimbursing commuting does not really encourage business.
I mention all this for a reason. On Councilman Bodack’s spending report, there is a 2003 expenditure of $1362 for “mileage”, followed by an expenditure of $1800 for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Perhaps $1800 is the maximum amount council will reimburse for mileage, and Councilman Bodack and his staff put more than $300 a month of travel on their personal vehicles, apart from any commuting mileage. I believe that would be a bit more than six hundred miles to cover on city business, for the councilman and his staff, every month (the current rate is 48 cents a mile, in 2004 it was 37.5 cents a mile). If council is reimbursing for business mileage, the Controller’s office should have records of every trip, to comply with Federal guidelines for providing money tax free to city employees.
This is on the public record, provided by Mr. Bodack. It’s not even on the spreadsheet the Dowd campaign had sent out.
I mention all this for a reason. On Councilman Bodack’s spending report, there is a 2003 expenditure of $1362 for “mileage”, followed by an expenditure of $1800 for 2004, 2005 and 2006. Perhaps $1800 is the maximum amount council will reimburse for mileage, and Councilman Bodack and his staff put more than $300 a month of travel on their personal vehicles, apart from any commuting mileage. I believe that would be a bit more than six hundred miles to cover on city business, for the councilman and his staff, every month (the current rate is 48 cents a mile, in 2004 it was 37.5 cents a mile). If council is reimbursing for business mileage, the Controller’s office should have records of every trip, to comply with Federal guidelines for providing money tax free to city employees.
This is on the public record, provided by Mr. Bodack. It’s not even on the spreadsheet the Dowd campaign had sent out.
Mr. Bodack's data is back on the city website...
So I got a comment this morning on yesterday’s post, that councilman Bodack’s spending information is back on the city council website. And so it is. I’m not sure I buy the idea that its absence was caused by maintenance issues, but the councilman could very have pulled it while he audited his own office. That would have been a prudent thing to do. In any event, the information on the council website matches the information sent by the Dowd campaign *except* the council website information is yearly summaries only. The information from the Dowd campaign is broken down to individual amounts with dates attached, probably at the invoice level.
I have thought about this and decided *not* to post the information sent by the Dowd campaign. The two sets of data do match, but I have no way to verify the breakdowns. And frankly, I’m not sure I should try to verify the breakdowns sent by the Dowd campaign. I ‘m fairly sure some other enterprising soul round the Burghosphere will not be as conservative as me in this regard, so I suspect I am depriving no one.
The spending information being there is another step by Mr. Bodack in answering the Dowd campaign’s request for information. I'm sure it’s not enough for the Dowd Campaign, but it advances the discussion.
Meanwhile, I notice the DowdforPittsburgh website lags a bit behind the latest campaign emails. There's no reason I can see to deprive people not on the Dowd Campaign email list of their latest ideas, so I am going to take the liberty of posting one, on transit/transportation issues:
Transportation Proposals
By Patrick Dowd
Candidate, Pittsburgh City Council District 7
Monday, April 30, 2007
As you ride down Butler St. , Penn Avenue or Negley Avenue in your car, on your bike, or on the bus, you can feel the bumps and potholes. These bumps are the result of dwindling resources and infrastructure investment decisions being made to the detriment of our communities.
While recent attention is being given to Port Authority’s issues, they are only part of the story. Pennsylvania is also battling a crumbling road and bridge system that, when coupled with our mass transit system, calls for us to do business a different way. As we embark on fixing our system of mass transit we also need to change how we invest in our other modes of transportation whether it is highways, avenues, streets, bridges, or trails. Our transportation system creates the link between our communities. Our investment practices should do the same.
As you know, a transportation network is an integral part of any community. Ensuring that you can travel to and from the places where we live, work and play is an important part of all of our lives. Having a variety of transportation options available to us makes our communities more livable, economical and environmentally sound. We need to ensure that we can create this necessary connectivity by using our transportation resources wisely. This is why we need to create a transportation vision for Council District 7. To do so, I’d like to begin this conversation by proposing four principles.
1. First, we need to align transportation investments with community investments.
The district is seeing new growth and development. Where these opportunities are arising, we need to make sure that they support our communities and enhance our quality of place.
2. Second, we need to ensure that we fix our existing infrastructure first.
Before new roads get built, we must make sure that we take care of what we have first. New roads mean new potholes in addition to the ones we already have. Being responsible with our money means taking care of our current assets.
3. Third, we must design of a transportation system that meets the needs of our communities.
This includes:
A mass transit system that encourages development around transit stops and services populations that will maximize system efficiency
An Access and Para Transit network that creates opportunity for seniors and persons with disabilities
A Bike and Trail network that creates a safe alternative to the automobile
Road and Bridge Improvements that enhance economic development, reduces wear and tear on our cars and improves safety and efficiency
4. Fourth, we create a dedicated and increasing source of funds to support mass transit.
Investing in transit is an investment in our future. Successful regions around the country are making prudent use of Mass transit. People are locating near transit to provide themselves with this choice. Transit needs to be a choice in our district.
Policy Proposals:
Community Planning and Prioritization
We will work with the Community organizations, Department of City Planning, Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Works to create the Pittsburgh Principles for Growth and Development. A community engagement and planning process that will help determine criteria for project prioritization, multi-neighborhood cooperation and the efficient allocation of resources.
Transportation Town Halls
We will work with transportation agencies, advocates, operators and planners to engage residents and begin the discussion to create a transportation vision for District 7.
Engage in the Regional Discussion
Transportation decisions go through a series of hoops. From the federal government to the state, to the metropolitan planning agency, to the municipality transportation resources move at a similar pace to the slow leak in your faucet. We will bring each level of the transportation discussion to District 7, keeping you aware of how your tax dollars are being spent.
Other issues for consideration:
· Support for the use of environmentally friendly busses
· Encourage and enhance bike safety and trail linkages
· Improve taxi-service
· Keeping bus stops clean and safe
Our City Council needs to play a bigger role in SPC discussions to make sure that projects inside the district are in line to get funding. That means advocacy, engaging with surrounding communities. We must align our transportation investments with community investments.
Our current representation isn’t thinking about how to connect our infrastructure with surrounding communities. Take for example the Enterprise Zone that runs from Millvale up to Aspinwall. How does that zone connect with Lawrenceville? Municipalities on the other side of the river are thinking about how to maximize this enterprise zone. 40th St is the lynchpin for the City to these communities.
We must engage in discussions with City Planning, the URA, and Community Organizations to get all stakeholders focused on this issue. There is more potential dedicated funding for this issue than anything else. If we aren’t spending our transportation dollars wisely, we can’t responsibly spend other public dollars.
##
Helpful Resources
Transportation Funding and Reform Commission http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/pdCommissCommitt.nsf/HomePageTransFundReformComm?OpenForm
American Society of Civil Engineers ( Pennsylvania Report Card)
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=states&page=PA
Pennsylvania Economy League (Investing in Transportation)
http://www.issuespa.net/publications/17673
I have thought about this and decided *not* to post the information sent by the Dowd campaign. The two sets of data do match, but I have no way to verify the breakdowns. And frankly, I’m not sure I should try to verify the breakdowns sent by the Dowd campaign. I ‘m fairly sure some other enterprising soul round the Burghosphere will not be as conservative as me in this regard, so I suspect I am depriving no one.
The spending information being there is another step by Mr. Bodack in answering the Dowd campaign’s request for information. I'm sure it’s not enough for the Dowd Campaign, but it advances the discussion.
Meanwhile, I notice the DowdforPittsburgh website lags a bit behind the latest campaign emails. There's no reason I can see to deprive people not on the Dowd Campaign email list of their latest ideas, so I am going to take the liberty of posting one, on transit/transportation issues:
Transportation Proposals
By Patrick Dowd
Candidate, Pittsburgh City Council District 7
Monday, April 30, 2007
As you ride down Butler St. , Penn Avenue or Negley Avenue in your car, on your bike, or on the bus, you can feel the bumps and potholes. These bumps are the result of dwindling resources and infrastructure investment decisions being made to the detriment of our communities.
While recent attention is being given to Port Authority’s issues, they are only part of the story. Pennsylvania is also battling a crumbling road and bridge system that, when coupled with our mass transit system, calls for us to do business a different way. As we embark on fixing our system of mass transit we also need to change how we invest in our other modes of transportation whether it is highways, avenues, streets, bridges, or trails. Our transportation system creates the link between our communities. Our investment practices should do the same.
As you know, a transportation network is an integral part of any community. Ensuring that you can travel to and from the places where we live, work and play is an important part of all of our lives. Having a variety of transportation options available to us makes our communities more livable, economical and environmentally sound. We need to ensure that we can create this necessary connectivity by using our transportation resources wisely. This is why we need to create a transportation vision for Council District 7. To do so, I’d like to begin this conversation by proposing four principles.
1. First, we need to align transportation investments with community investments.
The district is seeing new growth and development. Where these opportunities are arising, we need to make sure that they support our communities and enhance our quality of place.
2. Second, we need to ensure that we fix our existing infrastructure first.
Before new roads get built, we must make sure that we take care of what we have first. New roads mean new potholes in addition to the ones we already have. Being responsible with our money means taking care of our current assets.
3. Third, we must design of a transportation system that meets the needs of our communities.
This includes:
A mass transit system that encourages development around transit stops and services populations that will maximize system efficiency
An Access and Para Transit network that creates opportunity for seniors and persons with disabilities
A Bike and Trail network that creates a safe alternative to the automobile
Road and Bridge Improvements that enhance economic development, reduces wear and tear on our cars and improves safety and efficiency
4. Fourth, we create a dedicated and increasing source of funds to support mass transit.
Investing in transit is an investment in our future. Successful regions around the country are making prudent use of Mass transit. People are locating near transit to provide themselves with this choice. Transit needs to be a choice in our district.
Policy Proposals:
Community Planning and Prioritization
We will work with the Community organizations, Department of City Planning, Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Department of Public Works to create the Pittsburgh Principles for Growth and Development. A community engagement and planning process that will help determine criteria for project prioritization, multi-neighborhood cooperation and the efficient allocation of resources.
Transportation Town Halls
We will work with transportation agencies, advocates, operators and planners to engage residents and begin the discussion to create a transportation vision for District 7.
Engage in the Regional Discussion
Transportation decisions go through a series of hoops. From the federal government to the state, to the metropolitan planning agency, to the municipality transportation resources move at a similar pace to the slow leak in your faucet. We will bring each level of the transportation discussion to District 7, keeping you aware of how your tax dollars are being spent.
Other issues for consideration:
· Support for the use of environmentally friendly busses
· Encourage and enhance bike safety and trail linkages
· Improve taxi-service
· Keeping bus stops clean and safe
Our City Council needs to play a bigger role in SPC discussions to make sure that projects inside the district are in line to get funding. That means advocacy, engaging with surrounding communities. We must align our transportation investments with community investments.
Our current representation isn’t thinking about how to connect our infrastructure with surrounding communities. Take for example the Enterprise Zone that runs from Millvale up to Aspinwall. How does that zone connect with Lawrenceville? Municipalities on the other side of the river are thinking about how to maximize this enterprise zone. 40th St is the lynchpin for the City to these communities.
We must engage in discussions with City Planning, the URA, and Community Organizations to get all stakeholders focused on this issue. There is more potential dedicated funding for this issue than anything else. If we aren’t spending our transportation dollars wisely, we can’t responsibly spend other public dollars.
##
Helpful Resources
Transportation Funding and Reform Commission http://www.dot.state.pa.us/Internet/pdCommissCommitt.nsf/HomePageTransFundReformComm?OpenForm
American Society of Civil Engineers ( Pennsylvania Report Card)
http://www.asce.org/reportcard/index.cfm?reaction=states&page=PA
Pennsylvania Economy League (Investing in Transportation)
http://www.issuespa.net/publications/17673
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
And the saga continues
Not long after I posted this morning, I got a press release type email from Abby Wilson, with the Dowd campaign's take on Bodack's response. They mention that councilman Bodack had taken down his spending information from his city website. I thought it had been there in the past; my apologies to the anonymous commenter who had said it was. It's just gone now.
I commented over at the Comet on the present the Dowd campaign sent (a spreadsheet of information that probably was Bodack's spending report on the council website, saved by some forward thinking Dowd staffer). You can see my minimal comments here (http://pghcomet.blogspot.com/2007/05/bodack-infers-dowd-implies.html).
I commented over at the Comet on the present the Dowd campaign sent (a spreadsheet of information that probably was Bodack's spending report on the council website, saved by some forward thinking Dowd staffer). You can see my minimal comments here (http://pghcomet.blogspot.com/2007/05/bodack-infers-dowd-implies.html).
Just passin' this on ...
As noted at the Pittsburgh Comet in a comment by the PiGgy’s (PG's) Rich Lord, “Early Returns” (http://www.post-gazette.com/earlyreturns/) covers Councilman Len Bodack’s response to the Dowd campaign’s request for information. It’s a little strange to me that I didn’t get an email on it (I am on their email list for lots of other stuff). Possibly the Dowd campaign is waiting for something more conclusive to show us. Man, no more Morning File. Only Tony Norman and Cat's Call ... Maybe Ruth Ann could go to five days a week ...
*Amended Post* A couple more thoughts... First, in a display of unforgivably bad manners, I failed to thank an anonymous commenter last Friday for updating us on Councilman Bodack's response to Dr. Dowd.
Second, the PiGgy's coverage of Mr. Bodack's response is annoyingly vague. Early Returns provided extensive coverage of Dr. Dowd’s original request; did Councilman Bodack not provide his response to the PG or are they merely being partisan?
Third and by the by, it is somewhat annoying that this entire exchange appears to be taking place entirely online. Don’t the disenfranchised (i.e. computer-less) residents of district 7 deserve to know about this? Apparently, information is the province of the computer-savy (I’m not sure what I mean by that…).
*Amended Post* A couple more thoughts... First, in a display of unforgivably bad manners, I failed to thank an anonymous commenter last Friday for updating us on Councilman Bodack's response to Dr. Dowd.
Second, the PiGgy's coverage of Mr. Bodack's response is annoyingly vague. Early Returns provided extensive coverage of Dr. Dowd’s original request; did Councilman Bodack not provide his response to the PG or are they merely being partisan?
Third and by the by, it is somewhat annoying that this entire exchange appears to be taking place entirely online. Don’t the disenfranchised (i.e. computer-less) residents of district 7 deserve to know about this? Apparently, information is the province of the computer-savy (I’m not sure what I mean by that…).
Monday, April 30, 2007
Oh yeah, ...
I wanted to note the retirement of Peter Leo from the Post-Gazette (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07120/782186-294.stm). I have been reading him for years (decades), and while I didn't always find him funny, I can say he is consistently more funny than, say, … me. True to his somewhat oblique style, based on today's column, I can't say whether "The Morning File" will continue with a new byline. But I hope he will find some way to express himself publicly in retirement, at least occasionally. Maybe he could blog.
Iraq, still, from both directions
Maybe I will do some commenting from here, rather than there. Over at The Conversation (http://jonathanpotts.blogspot.com/) Jonathan Potts suggests that Charles Krauthammer is being something of a hypocrite for complaining that Boris Yeltsin failed to create total democracy in Russia since we haven’t been able to do so in Iraq. I guess I am sarcasm-impaired, this statement didn’t sit well with me:
“Perhaps a more capable leader could have guided Russia from totalitarianism to democracy. And perhaps a more capable leader could have brought democracy to Iraq. But to paraphrase a great man, you go to war with the president you have, not the president you want to have.”
I understand the comparison, but in my opinion it is flawed. Democracy, or some form of political change, was pretty much inevitable in Russia. By comparison, Iraq was entirely optional, interms of going there to set up democracy. If we had resisted going to war there, by now we might have rolled up much of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network and put a truly democratic government in Afghanistan.
I think it was on the PBS program “Now” that the idea was advanced that if we hadn’t disbanded the Iraqi army, the insurgency might have been headed off. Maybe. I accept the statements of the person being interviewed, that a day after the army was disbanded, the first IED attack occurred. But I think that even if the army were intact, there would be other problems over there. Tribal or religious divides would have emerged, or the people would get tied of the dictator that we would have put in place. Still, I suppose there is something to knowing exactly when the policy went to hell.
At two political junkies (http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/) they complain about Jack Kelly’s latest column accusing congressional democrats of, well, treason or appeasing the enemy or something. Kelly is seriously off the deep end, but I don’t think his column should be dismissed totally out of hand. The democrats in Congress and running for president have an interesting problem. They realize that while people want to get the troops out of Iraq, they also want to win the war, if there is any chance to do so. Ths creates an interesting dance, because I think the democratic leadership sees itself as vulnerable. I mean, it hasn’t hurt Murtha, and Pelosi and Reid are possibly safe, but the first major presidential candidate who comes out for unambiguous pullout can probably kiss the nomination or at least the general election good bye. Really, for everyone; the President, the republicans and the democrats, waiting is maybe the most attractive answer. The democrats pulled off a good policy maneuver this past week, sending the president something with a timetable to veto, so that everybody can look like they are doing *something* to their base. But really we are likely to see a whole slew of odd postures as candidates try to seem like they are both for and against the war. Kind of like the bids on Price is Right, closest to winning (whether in pullout or surge) without going too far in one direction.
“Perhaps a more capable leader could have guided Russia from totalitarianism to democracy. And perhaps a more capable leader could have brought democracy to Iraq. But to paraphrase a great man, you go to war with the president you have, not the president you want to have.”
I understand the comparison, but in my opinion it is flawed. Democracy, or some form of political change, was pretty much inevitable in Russia. By comparison, Iraq was entirely optional, interms of going there to set up democracy. If we had resisted going to war there, by now we might have rolled up much of the Islamic fundamentalist terror network and put a truly democratic government in Afghanistan.
I think it was on the PBS program “Now” that the idea was advanced that if we hadn’t disbanded the Iraqi army, the insurgency might have been headed off. Maybe. I accept the statements of the person being interviewed, that a day after the army was disbanded, the first IED attack occurred. But I think that even if the army were intact, there would be other problems over there. Tribal or religious divides would have emerged, or the people would get tied of the dictator that we would have put in place. Still, I suppose there is something to knowing exactly when the policy went to hell.
At two political junkies (http://2politicaljunkies.blogspot.com/) they complain about Jack Kelly’s latest column accusing congressional democrats of, well, treason or appeasing the enemy or something. Kelly is seriously off the deep end, but I don’t think his column should be dismissed totally out of hand. The democrats in Congress and running for president have an interesting problem. They realize that while people want to get the troops out of Iraq, they also want to win the war, if there is any chance to do so. Ths creates an interesting dance, because I think the democratic leadership sees itself as vulnerable. I mean, it hasn’t hurt Murtha, and Pelosi and Reid are possibly safe, but the first major presidential candidate who comes out for unambiguous pullout can probably kiss the nomination or at least the general election good bye. Really, for everyone; the President, the republicans and the democrats, waiting is maybe the most attractive answer. The democrats pulled off a good policy maneuver this past week, sending the president something with a timetable to veto, so that everybody can look like they are doing *something* to their base. But really we are likely to see a whole slew of odd postures as candidates try to seem like they are both for and against the war. Kind of like the bids on Price is Right, closest to winning (whether in pullout or surge) without going too far in one direction.
Friday, April 27, 2007
Yahoo's been quiet, too quiet ...
Well, today at 5:00 will make five days since Pat Dowd's campaign submitted an information request to councilman Len Bodack. I wonder what will happen, and whether the Piggy, I mean the Post Gazette, will cover it.
Thursday, April 26, 2007
um.
The Angry Drunk Bureaucrat has written about a malaise settling in around the Burghoshpere, and obviously I’m as guilty as the next blogger. Besides the reasons he listed (minus the computer issues, I’m always tinkering with mine), I think the fallout from the Mayoral primary has taken the wind out of many sails.
Speaking of malaise (for me), I continue my monologue on the state of my commute. Today I have a dinner in Oakland, so I drove. I am getting up early enough, but still poorly motivated to try the folding ride (it was cold this morning, and supposed to b e rainy later). Maybe tomorrow.
You would think the Burghosphere would get reved up about the new (back to the future) Places Rated Almanac (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07116/781162-53.stm). Twenty two years ago they rated us “America’s Most Livable City”. Like most flukes (sports teams, Sony plants) it didn’t last, and probably hurt the book itself. No longer published by Rand McNally, in fact now self-published by the author, the book has once again rated us the most livable city. Apparently, of the seven or nine factors used to measure cities, we didn’t score in the top twenty in any, and as low as 111 in housing and 135 in climate; never the less we came in number one. So you can stop wondering what Ravenstahl did with his left over campaign funds (hey, its only natural the city would buy a few thousand books for the “Luke Ravenstahl Visitor Center”, housed in the olde Garden Theatre on the near North Side, even if we did place the order before the number one city was chosen).
Well, ok, I have no proof of that (in fact, I am making the visitor center shtick and campaign fund part up), but how else do you explain this rating?
Speaking of malaise (for me), I continue my monologue on the state of my commute. Today I have a dinner in Oakland, so I drove. I am getting up early enough, but still poorly motivated to try the folding ride (it was cold this morning, and supposed to b e rainy later). Maybe tomorrow.
You would think the Burghosphere would get reved up about the new (back to the future) Places Rated Almanac (http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07116/781162-53.stm). Twenty two years ago they rated us “America’s Most Livable City”. Like most flukes (sports teams, Sony plants) it didn’t last, and probably hurt the book itself. No longer published by Rand McNally, in fact now self-published by the author, the book has once again rated us the most livable city. Apparently, of the seven or nine factors used to measure cities, we didn’t score in the top twenty in any, and as low as 111 in housing and 135 in climate; never the less we came in number one. So you can stop wondering what Ravenstahl did with his left over campaign funds (hey, its only natural the city would buy a few thousand books for the “Luke Ravenstahl Visitor Center”, housed in the olde Garden Theatre on the near North Side, even if we did place the order before the number one city was chosen).
Well, ok, I have no proof of that (in fact, I am making the visitor center shtick and campaign fund part up), but how else do you explain this rating?
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Then I saw the forecast for today...
Then I saw the forecast for today, and decided to bag bike riding for today.
(see previous post)
Wus. sssssssss.
Well, steady rain in the afternoon is enough to give anyone pause. I have a bag for the thing, and, embarrassingly, a bag for the bag. Why get the things wet the first time I use them?
I’ll try on a day when there are only scattered showers predicted, not a ¼ or ½ inch of rain predicted.
(see previous post)
Wus. sssssssss.
Well, steady rain in the afternoon is enough to give anyone pause. I have a bag for the thing, and, embarrassingly, a bag for the bag. Why get the things wet the first time I use them?
I’ll try on a day when there are only scattered showers predicted, not a ¼ or ½ inch of rain predicted.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Clowns on bikes music
I want to try to do the thing that I have thought about for some time. After all, we are only as small as our dreams, and mine is small. If I am not so tired tomorrow morning, I want to take my folding bike on the bus. Remember, I am in the East End, where the buses are crowded. And the folding bike is probably not good for more than a couple of miles before getting to be a drag. But I want to try. Maybe I will never do it again, maybe it is a dilettante thing, do a thing once to prove it is possible then never bother again.
Well, I figure I have to get up on time and exercise immediately to get out the door early, to get a less crowded bus. So I need to cut this short. If I do it, I’ll let you know. And yeah, it is supposed to rain tomorrow.
Well, I figure I have to get up on time and exercise immediately to get out the door early, to get a less crowded bus. So I need to cut this short. If I do it, I’ll let you know. And yeah, it is supposed to rain tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
I don't know what to make of the Burghosphere ...
(the point of this post comes in the last paragraph)
I don't know what to make of the Burghosphere ... I mean, I hang out at and no doubt annoy about six to ten different blogs or so, commenting like I’m part of a conversation (http://jonathanpotts.blogspot.com/), trying to find a null space (http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/) in the chatter to jump into.
Heh.
But it is really hard to take the whole thing seriously (credit to Bram for that phrase), because I see it as a group about the size of a classroom just talking to/at each other. This does not appear to be a significant part of the electorate, for example, and likely not representative of the electorate. Most everyone else in the Burghosphere is very well prepared and well read, and I don’t mind being taken as opinionated and probably wrong. So, my views are my own and if my logic doesn’t persuade you then its not strong enough and that’s my fault. I’m open to being persuaded myself, except not really. I’m vain enough to think that unless someone shows me I’m wrong, I’m not wrong. ‘course it is embarrassing how often people show me I’m wrong …
So this is leading in the direction of the on going Bodack/Dowd debate within the Burghosphere. I think I joined it early, posting about errors in email addresses and URL’s in a flyer I got from Pat Dowd. There were also errors on the web page. I posted on that. A few days later on a Sunday Pat Dowd knocked on my door and chatted to me and my step daughter about what he wants to do. I was frankly impressed, and I posted on it. I picked up a commenter who was clearly a Bodack supporter and we commented back and forth for a while. Now, I can’t say whether the accusations he has leveled at Dr.Dowd or his claims for Mr Bodack’s record are accurate or not, though I have no objection to his making them. Since my commenter has chosen to remain anonymous, I have made the assumption that it is one person. There have been a variety of anti-Dowd and pro-Bodack posts around the part of Burghosphere I read, many with similar writing styles. So I wonder if/kind of think it is the same person.
Regardless, I am a Patrick Dowd supporter because I have been persuaded by what I have seen. Currently my support is a bit like those yellow support the troops ribbons on cars, almost entirely in name. And that is fine with me (if not with Dr. Dowd), that is the real world of work and obligations. But I have been willing to talk about why I think Dr. Dowd is the better choice, and I will continue to talk about it. Once again, I don’t think many people read this site (and several have already abandoned this post), so even if I’m wrong I probably haven’t done much harm. I kind of like Barack Obama too.
I think Dr. Dowd put in an appearance in the comments of my last post. I say “think” because there really is no way to verify, and I noticed the poster who is pro-Bodack has started appropriating names, including the name of this blog, while commenting on other blogs. Anyway, the commenter Dowd answered very neatly an accusation made by an anonymous commenter, who had selectively referenced an ’05 PG story. And the real point of *this* post (there’s a point?) is to note that the commenter Dowd referenced http://www.patrickdowd.org/, a website used by Dr. Dowd for his school board work.
Which leads me to this: the Dowd campaign came out early with a web presence, and Dr. Dowd already had a considerable web presence. Although DowdforPittsburgh initially was quite light on issues, it has filled out considerably. It has a blog which I wish Dowd or his handlers would delegate to someone else, because it’s never been updated. But it also has video and pictures, press releases and so on, really as much as you could ask of any candidate. And patrickdowd.org existed prior to this campaign, and also has a huge amount of information. When Dr. Dowd talks about wanting to put transparency into government, well clearly he has already walked the walk. And once again, I can not find a Bodack campaign website, using Google on “Bodack”. My anonymous commenter has done yeoman work (that’s supposed to be a compliment) in filling in for this lack, with recent comments on the Burgh repore on a week old post, listing Mr. Bodacks accomplishments, and blasting the PG for endorsing Dowd. And I should note Mr. Bodack is one of a minority of council persons who have put there finances on the web. But the lack of a campaign website is, for me, enough to keep me from voting for Mr. Bodack, at least versus Dr. Dowd.
I don't know what to make of the Burghosphere ... I mean, I hang out at and no doubt annoy about six to ten different blogs or so, commenting like I’m part of a conversation (http://jonathanpotts.blogspot.com/), trying to find a null space (http://nullspace2.blogspot.com/) in the chatter to jump into.
Heh.
But it is really hard to take the whole thing seriously (credit to Bram for that phrase), because I see it as a group about the size of a classroom just talking to/at each other. This does not appear to be a significant part of the electorate, for example, and likely not representative of the electorate. Most everyone else in the Burghosphere is very well prepared and well read, and I don’t mind being taken as opinionated and probably wrong. So, my views are my own and if my logic doesn’t persuade you then its not strong enough and that’s my fault. I’m open to being persuaded myself, except not really. I’m vain enough to think that unless someone shows me I’m wrong, I’m not wrong. ‘course it is embarrassing how often people show me I’m wrong …
So this is leading in the direction of the on going Bodack/Dowd debate within the Burghosphere. I think I joined it early, posting about errors in email addresses and URL’s in a flyer I got from Pat Dowd. There were also errors on the web page. I posted on that. A few days later on a Sunday Pat Dowd knocked on my door and chatted to me and my step daughter about what he wants to do. I was frankly impressed, and I posted on it. I picked up a commenter who was clearly a Bodack supporter and we commented back and forth for a while. Now, I can’t say whether the accusations he has leveled at Dr.Dowd or his claims for Mr Bodack’s record are accurate or not, though I have no objection to his making them. Since my commenter has chosen to remain anonymous, I have made the assumption that it is one person. There have been a variety of anti-Dowd and pro-Bodack posts around the part of Burghosphere I read, many with similar writing styles. So I wonder if/kind of think it is the same person.
Regardless, I am a Patrick Dowd supporter because I have been persuaded by what I have seen. Currently my support is a bit like those yellow support the troops ribbons on cars, almost entirely in name. And that is fine with me (if not with Dr. Dowd), that is the real world of work and obligations. But I have been willing to talk about why I think Dr. Dowd is the better choice, and I will continue to talk about it. Once again, I don’t think many people read this site (and several have already abandoned this post), so even if I’m wrong I probably haven’t done much harm. I kind of like Barack Obama too.
I think Dr. Dowd put in an appearance in the comments of my last post. I say “think” because there really is no way to verify, and I noticed the poster who is pro-Bodack has started appropriating names, including the name of this blog, while commenting on other blogs. Anyway, the commenter Dowd answered very neatly an accusation made by an anonymous commenter, who had selectively referenced an ’05 PG story. And the real point of *this* post (there’s a point?) is to note that the commenter Dowd referenced http://www.patrickdowd.org/, a website used by Dr. Dowd for his school board work.
Which leads me to this: the Dowd campaign came out early with a web presence, and Dr. Dowd already had a considerable web presence. Although DowdforPittsburgh initially was quite light on issues, it has filled out considerably. It has a blog which I wish Dowd or his handlers would delegate to someone else, because it’s never been updated. But it also has video and pictures, press releases and so on, really as much as you could ask of any candidate. And patrickdowd.org existed prior to this campaign, and also has a huge amount of information. When Dr. Dowd talks about wanting to put transparency into government, well clearly he has already walked the walk. And once again, I can not find a Bodack campaign website, using Google on “Bodack”. My anonymous commenter has done yeoman work (that’s supposed to be a compliment) in filling in for this lack, with recent comments on the Burgh repore on a week old post, listing Mr. Bodacks accomplishments, and blasting the PG for endorsing Dowd. And I should note Mr. Bodack is one of a minority of council persons who have put there finances on the web. But the lack of a campaign website is, for me, enough to keep me from voting for Mr. Bodack, at least versus Dr. Dowd.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
They won all the battles but we had all the good songs
I'm thinking Tom Leher said that somewhere in the album "That was the year that was". Maybe.
The way my brain works… I have been thinking all day long that Pat Dowd needs a song. Since he has advocated for a council statement on the Port Authority situation, I’m thinking someone should update MTA. You know, Kingston Trio, “He’s the man who never returned”.
The funny thing is, it could be a hit. My wife reminded me that the song gets airtime on WJAS. I think young people in the district would be tickled to death to hear a protest song in this day and age. Maybe Agent Ska could produce it. But she would need a banjo player, or maybe just to sample the original …
The song starts (as copied from http://www.mit.edu/~jdreed/t/charlie.html):
The way my brain works… I have been thinking all day long that Pat Dowd needs a song. Since he has advocated for a council statement on the Port Authority situation, I’m thinking someone should update MTA. You know, Kingston Trio, “He’s the man who never returned”.
The funny thing is, it could be a hit. My wife reminded me that the song gets airtime on WJAS. I think young people in the district would be tickled to death to hear a protest song in this day and age. Maybe Agent Ska could produce it. But she would need a banjo player, or maybe just to sample the original …
The song starts (as copied from http://www.mit.edu/~jdreed/t/charlie.html):
Let me tell you the story
Of a man named Charlie
On a tragic and fateful day
He put ten cents in his pocket,
Kissed his wife and family
Went to ride on the MTA
Charlie handed in his dime
At the Kendall Square Station
And he changed for Jamaica Plain
When he got there the conductor told him,
"One more nickel."
Charlie could not get off that train.
Well, the ten cents part and the train change wouldn’t work, but I can see the conductor telling him “One more quarter”.Chorus:
Did he ever return,
No he never returned
And his fate is still unlearn'd
He may ride forever
'neath the streets of Boston
He's the man who never returned.
Now all night long
Charlie rides through the tunnels
Saying, "What will become of me?
How can I afford
to see My sister in Chelsea
Or my cousin in Roxbury?"
I can see changing lyrics to “My sister in Baldwin” and “the Pirates in PNC”. And skipping ahead a bit, the relevant lines would be:
Now you citizens of Boston,
Don't you think it's a scandal
That the people have to pay and pay
Vote for Walter A. O'Brien
And fight the fare increase
Get poor Charlie off the MTA.
Changed to:
Now you citizens of Pittsburgh,
Don’t you think it is a scandal
That the people have to pay and pay,
Vote for Patrick Dowd
And fight the fare increase,
Get poor Charlie off the LRT.
Well, I wanted to get that out of my head (and perhaps into yours). I hope I haven’t plagiarized the poor Kingston Trio. I hope they would approve of the re-imagining of the song they popularized.
He's the man who never returned.
He's the man who never returned.
Peduto, from a yet a greater distance
I think I might have reached an epiphany of sorts (better look it up …yeah, that’s it). There was always a disconnect between Bill Peduto’s default position as designated reformer and his actions. When he talked on the KD/PG Sunday morning show, he described the race as about leadership, though he only offered a few tantalizing crumbs about how that should be defined (remember, at this point he had quit the race, and seemed to be waiting for the rebellion to pull him back in, to cry out how we had misunderstood him and truly needed him – draft Bill to run – a true Teddy Kennedy moment). No words about his plans for reform I heard (though I missed some moments). In the City Paper interview, he said, as I remember, that he was relying on the reform plans he had posted on the web in ’05, but maybe he should have reposted them or put some new ideas out …
So today I was in the process of replying, on the Burgh Report, as it happens, to a comment from Char (is that pronounced Burr Repore?) and as I formulated my reply something finally dawned on me. Bill Peduto wants to be mayor more than he wants to implement reform. That’s why he is staying with the democratic party, that’s why he is waiting to run. Yes, he can introduce reform in city council, but as one member among nine, he won’t be blamed if nothing is accomplished and the city goes further down the tubes.
I have an absolute blind spot, I assume that self-designated reformers share my interest in policy for policies’ sake (policy for policy’s sake?). Don’t get me wrong, I have my tin-plated swaggering dictatorial moments (I *like* to be in charge), but I also enjoy it when a plan comes together (in the immortal words of Hannibal wossiname). I like following the logic, identifying the effect of tax policy on tuition (a reform as one of several factors contributing to a negative trend) or using the tuition and fees deduction to bring down AGI and increase the Earned Income Credit (the only real tax trick I know … shhhhh, don’t tell anyone). But my blind spot is limited only to candidates whom I assume are naïve, I have learned that office holders who want to run again quickly learn lessons, and ambitious office holders have to make deals with people real reformers would only want to lecture to.
So, forgive me for being so blind. Peduto didn’t put reform material on the web because it didn’t work in the last primary. Luke was stealing ideas and the press was chuckling affectionately (“awww, isn’t he cute”). But Bill can see the shine will wear off our shiny mayor and Luke will be exposed as a clumsy politician. There is a distinct possibility that Doug Shields will become our mayor before ’09, but in any event the words “Grand Jury Investigation” are fast becoming all but inevitable. So Bill can wait.
But if Bill cared more about the city than his career (I know, so silly for me to suggest that)… I always have a special disdain for politicians who believe that their “leadership” skills are so valuable that it doesn’t really matter whether reform in enacted or not, the city (or whatever governmental unit) will benefit more from just being led by them.
And, you know, reformers aren’t, after any time in office. This appears to be the story of Jim Ferlo, who still speaks with reformer zeal about the convention center, but appears to have caved to the various machines on public transit and his old council seat race.
And that’s the thing, politician’s are like that now, always having to run and raise money and curry favor. Still, if they enact reform early, or even late when forced, it can live on. Luke could appoint that fifth member of the ethics board (at the end of his term, maybe) and it could start to shine light on government. Pat Dowd could get his transparency in city government and then break all his promises and run for mayor (arguably … never mind). The point would be that the policies would live on, no matter how good or bad the politician.
But Bill hadn’t even made any proposals. He judged it tactically useful not to bring up reform, and I fear a Peduto Mayorship might not have had much reform in it either. You have to go with the evidence and behavior at hand.
So today I was in the process of replying, on the Burgh Report, as it happens, to a comment from Char (is that pronounced Burr Repore?) and as I formulated my reply something finally dawned on me. Bill Peduto wants to be mayor more than he wants to implement reform. That’s why he is staying with the democratic party, that’s why he is waiting to run. Yes, he can introduce reform in city council, but as one member among nine, he won’t be blamed if nothing is accomplished and the city goes further down the tubes.
I have an absolute blind spot, I assume that self-designated reformers share my interest in policy for policies’ sake (policy for policy’s sake?). Don’t get me wrong, I have my tin-plated swaggering dictatorial moments (I *like* to be in charge), but I also enjoy it when a plan comes together (in the immortal words of Hannibal wossiname). I like following the logic, identifying the effect of tax policy on tuition (a reform as one of several factors contributing to a negative trend) or using the tuition and fees deduction to bring down AGI and increase the Earned Income Credit (the only real tax trick I know … shhhhh, don’t tell anyone). But my blind spot is limited only to candidates whom I assume are naïve, I have learned that office holders who want to run again quickly learn lessons, and ambitious office holders have to make deals with people real reformers would only want to lecture to.
So, forgive me for being so blind. Peduto didn’t put reform material on the web because it didn’t work in the last primary. Luke was stealing ideas and the press was chuckling affectionately (“awww, isn’t he cute”). But Bill can see the shine will wear off our shiny mayor and Luke will be exposed as a clumsy politician. There is a distinct possibility that Doug Shields will become our mayor before ’09, but in any event the words “Grand Jury Investigation” are fast becoming all but inevitable. So Bill can wait.
But if Bill cared more about the city than his career (I know, so silly for me to suggest that)… I always have a special disdain for politicians who believe that their “leadership” skills are so valuable that it doesn’t really matter whether reform in enacted or not, the city (or whatever governmental unit) will benefit more from just being led by them.
And, you know, reformers aren’t, after any time in office. This appears to be the story of Jim Ferlo, who still speaks with reformer zeal about the convention center, but appears to have caved to the various machines on public transit and his old council seat race.
And that’s the thing, politician’s are like that now, always having to run and raise money and curry favor. Still, if they enact reform early, or even late when forced, it can live on. Luke could appoint that fifth member of the ethics board (at the end of his term, maybe) and it could start to shine light on government. Pat Dowd could get his transparency in city government and then break all his promises and run for mayor (arguably … never mind). The point would be that the policies would live on, no matter how good or bad the politician.
But Bill hadn’t even made any proposals. He judged it tactically useful not to bring up reform, and I fear a Peduto Mayorship might not have had much reform in it either. You have to go with the evidence and behavior at hand.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Something caught my attention ...
So I haven’t posted in over a week. Busy, busy, but also there’s not much in the way of news recently. The war in fact does seem like a lost cause, the democrats are trying to fix the AMT; interesting but not enough to draw me away from other things to the keyboard.
I will say this, UPMC’s plan to move their headquarters got me thinking. I guess a lot of the headquarters was probably already in Chatham Center, but the official-ness of the move from Oakland and the flagship UPMC hospitals to downtown has some symbolic value.
I think a lot of people think the label “Non-profit” is way too broad. I guess there is already a term “Not for profit” that covers at least Blue Cross/Highmark (or it did when I worked there). I, for one, am disturbed/annoyed that one of the tenants of one of the presumably higher priced buildings downtown will be paying no property tax on their rent. They will get to “choose” what contribution to make to the city/county. Sure, UPMC is regulated in their insurance business, they have to negotiate with insurance companies for payment and all the rest. But their protests about all their charity and their nonprofit status sound a little too much like the oil companies saying “we just had a good year” (record profits in the billions) “We have bad years, we can’t we have good years?”.
I will say this, UPMC’s plan to move their headquarters got me thinking. I guess a lot of the headquarters was probably already in Chatham Center, but the official-ness of the move from Oakland and the flagship UPMC hospitals to downtown has some symbolic value.
I think a lot of people think the label “Non-profit” is way too broad. I guess there is already a term “Not for profit” that covers at least Blue Cross/Highmark (or it did when I worked there). I, for one, am disturbed/annoyed that one of the tenants of one of the presumably higher priced buildings downtown will be paying no property tax on their rent. They will get to “choose” what contribution to make to the city/county. Sure, UPMC is regulated in their insurance business, they have to negotiate with insurance companies for payment and all the rest. But their protests about all their charity and their nonprofit status sound a little too much like the oil companies saying “we just had a good year” (record profits in the billions) “We have bad years, we can’t we have good years?”.
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Now is the time of darkness ....
I realize there are still a bunch of political things going on right now, but I feel compelled to shift gears a bit, if only because I am forced to realize there is life outside the Burghosphere, by job #2.
Taxes.
I don’t mean tax policy, although I am keenly interested in that. I suppose I mean tax incidence. What I really mean is how taxes affect you, or them, the people who come into tax offices. By this time, almost April 1st, there is a better than even chance that they waited this long because they knew something bad was going to happen. There is a better than even chance they knew something bad was going to happen and they want to avoid it. There is some chance they will blame the tax preparer, they will not want to file, they will walk out, trying (desperately) to stave off the inevitable. By the way, by tax preparer, I mean me. God knows I’ve done that kind of thing, but the government will not care whether you are a good person or that your employer did not explain tax liability to you (or understand it themselves). IRS agents are not bad people, they can be sympathetic, but they see the bigger picture, that the rules must be obeyed (understand, all my experience with IRS agents is indirect, but I think I understand the position they are in, and the kind of people who go into that kind of work).
The point being … If you are a single person with no kids, if you just have wages, and someone gave you good advice or no one gave you bad advice or you are able to read and understand, you could be all right. The government gives you no special favors for being unmarried and childless, they take what they want. Your only control is whether they take it during the year or when you file your taxes.
Your only control is whether they take it during the year or when you file your taxes.
I repeat that because people do not understand that when they owe, they just need to pay money the government meant to take during the year. Economists will tell you they are ahead in the tax game, but I know nobody cares about that. There are people who are unluckier than that. There are single people with two or three jobs, who maybe take a few dollars from the YWCA to watch kids or take a graphic design assignment for a non-profit for $750 because they can draw or run the computer. A person who is told by Social Security that if they charge their mom who lives with them rent (even if she doesn’t pay), their mom could get the Pennsylvania rent rebate. These are not rich people (although they could be, but where I am working now, an IRS VITA site, they wouldn’t be). If they have kids and a low-ish income, they may be OK. They won’t get back the refund they were hoping for or (if experienced) expecting, but they won’t have a nasty surprise. Their thousand dollar child tax credit, their child and dependent care tax credit and/or their earner income credit will help compensate for their tax missteps.
If you are single, the government doesn’t tax you on the first $8450 you make when you are working. If you have one job, fine, everything is understood, you should owe or get anything back when you file. But if you have two jobs, both jobs are likely to think they are your only job (especially depending on how you fill out your W-4’s). Both jobs will with-hold as if the government will not tax you on the first $8450 *they* pay you, but the government will not tax you on only *one* $8450, no matter what your jobs thinks. This applies whether you work a main job and a side job, or whether you change jobs during the year. At a 10% tax rate, we could be talking about $845. At 15% …
Last year or the year before, when I worked at Block, I had some reasonably well off people, both of whom had changed jobs during the year. Their W-4’s were probably Married Filing Joint, with two exemptions. So they each had 16,000 worth of income sheltered, twice. Of the four 16000’s, the government was willing to give them one. I think it was $45oo they owed. They left the office, never to return. I guess they went to someone who could find a way to lie for them, convincingly.
If you do an ad for a non-profit, a one time shot where they don’t put you on the payroll, or if you answer an ad to watch kids part time for the YWCA, you are not an employee. You receive a 1099 and you are being treated as if you have your own business. But as any self employed people who have been working for more than a year can tell you, the government still expects you to pony up for your own Medicare and Social Security taxes; in addition to your regular federal income tax. We’re talking about 15 to 20 percent of the payment for that ad, or of what the YWCA gave you all year. There is nothing you can do about it, you got the money without tax being taken out. The most you can do is limit your liability by thinking about what things enabled you to make that ad, or what you spent on the kid you watched. You can reduce the tax you owe, but you can’t eliminate it. If you go too far in finding “business expenses”, you invite a tax audit, and you’d better have receipts for all those expenses.
All of these are “close to real” examples, and the YWCA example is very real, a person whose taxes I reviewed last night had that (by reviewed I mean; in VITA office this year the IRS is having a second person look at people’s taxes). But the rent thing I mentioned earlier is absolutely and unfortunately happened to the same person who was surprised with a 1099 from the Y. Her story was that apparently her mother lives with her, or in a house she owns. I don’t believe her mom paid any rent. Well, someone in the Social Security Administration told her that if her mom did pay her rent, then mom could qualify for a Pennsylvania rent rebate. But there’s a flip side, now the woman (the daughter) has to claim rental income.
VITA sites aren’t equipped to file the forms needed to deal with rental income. We had to turn the woman away. Now I wonder if she will file at all.
Well, I gone on with this a long time, and I’m not sure I even had a point. If you (tax preparer) get people a lot of money, they will think you are the best thing since sliced bread, even if you are pretty convinced that software would have gotten them the same refund. And if they owe, or just get back less than they think they deserve, there first response will be to accuse of incompetence and then to think you cheated them. Most of the time tax preparers have very little leeway in tax preparation. But of course people attribute god like powers to you, and then wonder why you have not favored them.
Mostly though, you should look at your pay stub. If something doesn’t make sense, there is probably a reason for that, and you should ask. By the time next year’s filing time rolls around, it will be too late to fix anything.
Maybe this was just about blowing off steam.
Taxes.
I don’t mean tax policy, although I am keenly interested in that. I suppose I mean tax incidence. What I really mean is how taxes affect you, or them, the people who come into tax offices. By this time, almost April 1st, there is a better than even chance that they waited this long because they knew something bad was going to happen. There is a better than even chance they knew something bad was going to happen and they want to avoid it. There is some chance they will blame the tax preparer, they will not want to file, they will walk out, trying (desperately) to stave off the inevitable. By the way, by tax preparer, I mean me. God knows I’ve done that kind of thing, but the government will not care whether you are a good person or that your employer did not explain tax liability to you (or understand it themselves). IRS agents are not bad people, they can be sympathetic, but they see the bigger picture, that the rules must be obeyed (understand, all my experience with IRS agents is indirect, but I think I understand the position they are in, and the kind of people who go into that kind of work).
The point being … If you are a single person with no kids, if you just have wages, and someone gave you good advice or no one gave you bad advice or you are able to read and understand, you could be all right. The government gives you no special favors for being unmarried and childless, they take what they want. Your only control is whether they take it during the year or when you file your taxes.
Your only control is whether they take it during the year or when you file your taxes.
I repeat that because people do not understand that when they owe, they just need to pay money the government meant to take during the year. Economists will tell you they are ahead in the tax game, but I know nobody cares about that. There are people who are unluckier than that. There are single people with two or three jobs, who maybe take a few dollars from the YWCA to watch kids or take a graphic design assignment for a non-profit for $750 because they can draw or run the computer. A person who is told by Social Security that if they charge their mom who lives with them rent (even if she doesn’t pay), their mom could get the Pennsylvania rent rebate. These are not rich people (although they could be, but where I am working now, an IRS VITA site, they wouldn’t be). If they have kids and a low-ish income, they may be OK. They won’t get back the refund they were hoping for or (if experienced) expecting, but they won’t have a nasty surprise. Their thousand dollar child tax credit, their child and dependent care tax credit and/or their earner income credit will help compensate for their tax missteps.
If you are single, the government doesn’t tax you on the first $8450 you make when you are working. If you have one job, fine, everything is understood, you should owe or get anything back when you file. But if you have two jobs, both jobs are likely to think they are your only job (especially depending on how you fill out your W-4’s). Both jobs will with-hold as if the government will not tax you on the first $8450 *they* pay you, but the government will not tax you on only *one* $8450, no matter what your jobs thinks. This applies whether you work a main job and a side job, or whether you change jobs during the year. At a 10% tax rate, we could be talking about $845. At 15% …
Last year or the year before, when I worked at Block, I had some reasonably well off people, both of whom had changed jobs during the year. Their W-4’s were probably Married Filing Joint, with two exemptions. So they each had 16,000 worth of income sheltered, twice. Of the four 16000’s, the government was willing to give them one. I think it was $45oo they owed. They left the office, never to return. I guess they went to someone who could find a way to lie for them, convincingly.
If you do an ad for a non-profit, a one time shot where they don’t put you on the payroll, or if you answer an ad to watch kids part time for the YWCA, you are not an employee. You receive a 1099 and you are being treated as if you have your own business. But as any self employed people who have been working for more than a year can tell you, the government still expects you to pony up for your own Medicare and Social Security taxes; in addition to your regular federal income tax. We’re talking about 15 to 20 percent of the payment for that ad, or of what the YWCA gave you all year. There is nothing you can do about it, you got the money without tax being taken out. The most you can do is limit your liability by thinking about what things enabled you to make that ad, or what you spent on the kid you watched. You can reduce the tax you owe, but you can’t eliminate it. If you go too far in finding “business expenses”, you invite a tax audit, and you’d better have receipts for all those expenses.
All of these are “close to real” examples, and the YWCA example is very real, a person whose taxes I reviewed last night had that (by reviewed I mean; in VITA office this year the IRS is having a second person look at people’s taxes). But the rent thing I mentioned earlier is absolutely and unfortunately happened to the same person who was surprised with a 1099 from the Y. Her story was that apparently her mother lives with her, or in a house she owns. I don’t believe her mom paid any rent. Well, someone in the Social Security Administration told her that if her mom did pay her rent, then mom could qualify for a Pennsylvania rent rebate. But there’s a flip side, now the woman (the daughter) has to claim rental income.
VITA sites aren’t equipped to file the forms needed to deal with rental income. We had to turn the woman away. Now I wonder if she will file at all.
Well, I gone on with this a long time, and I’m not sure I even had a point. If you (tax preparer) get people a lot of money, they will think you are the best thing since sliced bread, even if you are pretty convinced that software would have gotten them the same refund. And if they owe, or just get back less than they think they deserve, there first response will be to accuse of incompetence and then to think you cheated them. Most of the time tax preparers have very little leeway in tax preparation. But of course people attribute god like powers to you, and then wonder why you have not favored them.
Mostly though, you should look at your pay stub. If something doesn’t make sense, there is probably a reason for that, and you should ask. By the time next year’s filing time rolls around, it will be too late to fix anything.
Maybe this was just about blowing off steam.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
more questions than answers
So I know we are all beating the dead horse furiously, but there are just things I don’t understand. Like I said in my last post, I don’t feel I ever knew what Bill was about in his candidacy for mayor. I’m told there were position papers in the ’05 run (I’m mixing up dates here, I think ’05 is right), but none this time. At the same time, Pittsburgh Guy covers bizarre efforts by Bill to influence ACDC members prior to the endorsement with mailings designed to look like official party documents. This is difficult to reconcile with Bill’s claim that he was withdrawing because he didn’t want to go negative. Anyway, much of the Burgosphere believes Bill wouldn’t have had to go negative, he could just have no commented that to death. I mean, since Bill was behind he had the freedom to simply run a clean campaign. But again, whither be the issues, where are the meaty position papers that would have indicated what you meant when you said you are the leader of a reform movement. Now, apparently Bill explained to Fred Honsberger that there were indications that people thought Bill was dissing the memory of Bob O’Connor by running against Luke. While the statement is interesting, it’s not like Bob reached up from his hospital bed and anointed Luke. Luke, of course, has tried to establish the connection, but I don’t think it would have gone unchallenged.
I don’t know, there are a bunch reasons for pulling out of a race, but nothing Bill has said has been convincing. Of course, this seems to encourage endless speculation around the parts of the Burgosphere I read. The thing is, as I try and step back and really take a look, I know some of the facts but not really enough to even try to explain what happened.
I also don’t know what is going to happen to the city. Luke surely seems like nothing so much as a Culkin. When he gets a bit older, he is not going to find hidden depths and emerge as a great director like Opie (to continue beating the actor analogy). Luke will turn out to have been one more hack politician all along, perhaps in the vein of Jim Motznik. A kid who likes to watch hockey. And the city will have lost its new star, and slide a bit further backwards.
Would an Onorato as governor pull Pittsburgh’s fat out of the fire? Will the immoderate spending of a Ravenstahl administration finally drive us into bankruptcy despite the presence of state overseers? I would say stay tuned, but what choice do we have?
I don’t know, there are a bunch reasons for pulling out of a race, but nothing Bill has said has been convincing. Of course, this seems to encourage endless speculation around the parts of the Burgosphere I read. The thing is, as I try and step back and really take a look, I know some of the facts but not really enough to even try to explain what happened.
I also don’t know what is going to happen to the city. Luke surely seems like nothing so much as a Culkin. When he gets a bit older, he is not going to find hidden depths and emerge as a great director like Opie (to continue beating the actor analogy). Luke will turn out to have been one more hack politician all along, perhaps in the vein of Jim Motznik. A kid who likes to watch hockey. And the city will have lost its new star, and slide a bit further backwards.
Would an Onorato as governor pull Pittsburgh’s fat out of the fire? Will the immoderate spending of a Ravenstahl administration finally drive us into bankruptcy despite the presence of state overseers? I would say stay tuned, but what choice do we have?
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Here's the thing ...
So at this point it just doesn’t matter, but, you gotta understand that I am an ordinary guy, and I look at the world in ordinary ways. By which I mean I read the paper, often every day, I agree with it if I like the paper and take it with a grain of salt if I don’t (I don’t read the trib much). I go through phases where I ignore local news, so I don’t know a lot about Pittsburgh’s history.
When Peduto ran before, I guess in ’83, about all I knew about him was that progressives seemed to like him and that he had been Dan Cohen’s staffer. I was pretty impressed that a high powered lawyer like Cohen had been on council, so automatically I was well disposed towards Peduto, but people also said he is smart. I dunno, some people you get that smart vibe and some people you don’t; I didn’t really get it from Peduto but, who knows. Dropped out of school? Was Cohen’s campaign chair/hatchet man in a House run?
So who is/was Bill Peduto? Policy wonk, Loyal Democratic Soldier, scheming politician …. All three?
Al Gore is considered a policy wonk. Of course, Al Gore claimed he invented the internet … NO NO NO (look at the Wikipedia page). But I gotta say, there was a bit in “An Inconvenient Truth” where Al was talking about the professor from, I think, the sixties who was where Al Gore first heard about global warming. The thing is, Al said the guy had noticed the upswing in the temperature for like, at that point, the last five years or so. FIVE YEARS??? That’s nothing, the guy should have had his tenure yanked and been thrown out on his ass.
OK, so the guy was right, but shame on Al for listening to such a crack pot.
But Al Gore has written some books and made a movie with Laurie David (almost as annoying as Larry David). What makes Bill Peduto a wonk.
I tried to find examples of what Peduto has done. Maybe I should watch council on the TV, because I looked on Bill’s campaign website and nary an issue or policy. Of course, Luke’s doesn’t either that I could find, but we are talking about the reputed wonk. Other people have said Bill’s a wonk, so I am inclined to believe it, except that I can’t prove it to myself. Granted, his council site has a couple of policy things. I get the impression he didn’t write them, but at least he posted them and I assume read them.
Here’s the thing, I am a slightly better than averagely informed person, but I never got a firm grasp on what Peduto might do as Mayor. Now just not being Luke would have been something, but since Luke is a walking national billboard for the city, I can see where the city might not want to replace Luke. Several people commented on the Peduto blog site that there weren’t any issues there.
One of the reasons Bill gave for dropping out was that he didn’t want the campaign to go negative. Well, he can control what comes out of his own mouth. Yes, there were viral videos going up, but that was because the Mayor was mis-stepping everywhere. If Bill wanted to talk about policy or issues, he should have done that, and made it interesting and brief enough to satisfy his voters and the media.
I don’t know, I don’t have much more to say ('sides I'm tired). Does seem likely, the way things have gone, that tomorrow could well bring some new shocking news.
When Peduto ran before, I guess in ’83, about all I knew about him was that progressives seemed to like him and that he had been Dan Cohen’s staffer. I was pretty impressed that a high powered lawyer like Cohen had been on council, so automatically I was well disposed towards Peduto, but people also said he is smart. I dunno, some people you get that smart vibe and some people you don’t; I didn’t really get it from Peduto but, who knows. Dropped out of school? Was Cohen’s campaign chair/hatchet man in a House run?
So who is/was Bill Peduto? Policy wonk, Loyal Democratic Soldier, scheming politician …. All three?
Al Gore is considered a policy wonk. Of course, Al Gore claimed he invented the internet … NO NO NO (look at the Wikipedia page). But I gotta say, there was a bit in “An Inconvenient Truth” where Al was talking about the professor from, I think, the sixties who was where Al Gore first heard about global warming. The thing is, Al said the guy had noticed the upswing in the temperature for like, at that point, the last five years or so. FIVE YEARS??? That’s nothing, the guy should have had his tenure yanked and been thrown out on his ass.
OK, so the guy was right, but shame on Al for listening to such a crack pot.
But Al Gore has written some books and made a movie with Laurie David (almost as annoying as Larry David). What makes Bill Peduto a wonk.
I tried to find examples of what Peduto has done. Maybe I should watch council on the TV, because I looked on Bill’s campaign website and nary an issue or policy. Of course, Luke’s doesn’t either that I could find, but we are talking about the reputed wonk. Other people have said Bill’s a wonk, so I am inclined to believe it, except that I can’t prove it to myself. Granted, his council site has a couple of policy things. I get the impression he didn’t write them, but at least he posted them and I assume read them.
Here’s the thing, I am a slightly better than averagely informed person, but I never got a firm grasp on what Peduto might do as Mayor. Now just not being Luke would have been something, but since Luke is a walking national billboard for the city, I can see where the city might not want to replace Luke. Several people commented on the Peduto blog site that there weren’t any issues there.
One of the reasons Bill gave for dropping out was that he didn’t want the campaign to go negative. Well, he can control what comes out of his own mouth. Yes, there were viral videos going up, but that was because the Mayor was mis-stepping everywhere. If Bill wanted to talk about policy or issues, he should have done that, and made it interesting and brief enough to satisfy his voters and the media.
I don’t know, I don’t have much more to say ('sides I'm tired). Does seem likely, the way things have gone, that tomorrow could well bring some new shocking news.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Little did I know ...
Little did I know, when I said that events move fast in the Burgosphere last night, what this afternoon would bring…
Peduto is keeping his campaign office open, and holding a scheduled fund raising event next week. He mentioned running as an independent, more than once in his press conference. He might have an angle, something to get around the Caliguiri rule. Since he was likely to lose the primary, no matter how much dirt came out about Luke, Peduto is not exactly losing anything here. Maybe Peduto thinks that the combination of Republican and Democratic voters in the fall election will work better for him. Maybe there is something coming in an ethics investigation.
A certain loss in the primary versus a chance at some sneaky way to run as an independent in the fall. Can’t say as I blame Bill. Couldn’t blame Bill for turning his back, at least temporarily, on the local democratic party, after their spectacular lack of support at the endorsement meeting.
Well, maybe Bill can get some local filmmaker to help him make a film about these issues he really cares about. Maybe “An Inconvenient Budget”.
Peduto is keeping his campaign office open, and holding a scheduled fund raising event next week. He mentioned running as an independent, more than once in his press conference. He might have an angle, something to get around the Caliguiri rule. Since he was likely to lose the primary, no matter how much dirt came out about Luke, Peduto is not exactly losing anything here. Maybe Peduto thinks that the combination of Republican and Democratic voters in the fall election will work better for him. Maybe there is something coming in an ethics investigation.
A certain loss in the primary versus a chance at some sneaky way to run as an independent in the fall. Can’t say as I blame Bill. Couldn’t blame Bill for turning his back, at least temporarily, on the local democratic party, after their spectacular lack of support at the endorsement meeting.
Well, maybe Bill can get some local filmmaker to help him make a film about these issues he really cares about. Maybe “An Inconvenient Budget”.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
I'll say it again, events move fast in the Burghospere
Although the Mayor's latest flare-up had nothing to do with blogs, still it strikes me that, at least during campaign season, events move fast. This happened, what, tonight, and already there are a half dozen different analyses I could find.
How much spin is left in the Mayor
Well, I tell you what, I’d rather be putting this into a comment than a post, because I think more people might see my comments on *other people’s blogs* …
So the Mayor has been caught in a lie *again* and once again the MSM is carrying it, perhaps a bit more aggressively. If the MSM keeps it up, the Mayor’s campaign may be fairly damaged by this.
The Mayor is in a fairly interesting position. He got national attention last year taking over Pittsburgh, going on Letterman and getting national write ups. He is clearly a photogenic young man, and although to me he sounds a bit like a kid when he speaks, this seems to be part of his charm. The story on CBS Sunday morning didn’t hurt. Then there is the Penguins story; they were going to leave and all looked dark, then suddenly we were all pulled back from the brink. Between Rendell, Onorato and Ravenstahl, Ravenstahl has clearly benefited the most because Rendell is not running for anything and Onorato is uncontested. Arguably Ravenstahl contributed the least of the three.
So it is no surprise that the local democratic council bestowed their blessing on Ravenstahl, he is our media star, practically a tourist destination. No surprise that Ron Burkle pulled him aside and invited him to New York. I don’t know Burkle, but if he is a FOB (Friend of Bill) he probably has some pull.
By the way, some people have suggested this trip was a violation of ethics. C’mon, get real. The Mayor, this Mayor, is on a different plane (no pun intended). He is basking in the glow of popularity and generating buzz. How could he refuse? I mean, he’s not like that stick in the mud Onorato. Hmm. Back to that in minute.
The thing is, this is a 27 year old politician Mayor. Now there are different kinds of politicians. There are those who play the wonk, like Peduto seems to be (like Adlai Stevenson played an “egghead”, blasted for being a phony by the Kennedy’s, according to Beschloss)(what?). Then there are the campaigners, which is what Ravenstahl seems to be, charming and pretty intelligent, probably enjoys helping people, but also in it to win. Mostly (I suspect) in it to win.
The other thing is, he’s 27. Young enough not to have learned when *not* to be combative. Young enough to think that people care more about the bad thing you do than they do about whether you own up to it. Consider that people believe that Clinton lied, and many think that Bush has lied. Clinton (eventually) owned up and apologized, and even the Republican senate couldn’t quite get rid of him. And he finished the second term with pretty good poll numbers. Much better than Bush’s number right now, the Bush who can’t admit he’s made mistakes.
And Ravenstahl has made mistakes, lying about Heinz field, lying about the New York trip, letting Dennis Regan make bad calls for him, etc. Then there are potential ethical violations. Cost recovery (the lack of) may be a mistake, although the voters probably won't care. Still, as these mistakes begin to pile up, I wonder what the democrats are going to do? They have this novelty figure, but if it turns out he can’t figure out how to behave with the press, can they afford to keep backing him?
I wonder about Dan Onorato. Here he is, a rising star, managing to make the right friends in the party, championing “right sizing” the Port Authority yet escaping any accusation of selling out the county. He’s weathered the assessments mess so far (probably because even expensive property in Pittsburgh would be considered a steal anywhere else). Dan’s worked pretty hard to get where he is, but he is not getting any national press. Suddenly here’s this kid, and everybody is paying attention to him. And what does this kid do with this incredible gift from heaven? He’s risking throwing it all away because he doesn’t know when to tell the truth.
Onorato must be beside himself, Rendell too. When do they start to distance themselves?
If the MSM stays with it, if tough questions get asked in the debates (if there is/are debate(s)), this might be a turning point. Tough questions might get asked too, because reporters have memories, and remember that Luke stonewalled them on the Heinz field thing for months. Or maybe the blogs are too incestuous and the voters still like the spiky hair.
So the Mayor has been caught in a lie *again* and once again the MSM is carrying it, perhaps a bit more aggressively. If the MSM keeps it up, the Mayor’s campaign may be fairly damaged by this.
The Mayor is in a fairly interesting position. He got national attention last year taking over Pittsburgh, going on Letterman and getting national write ups. He is clearly a photogenic young man, and although to me he sounds a bit like a kid when he speaks, this seems to be part of his charm. The story on CBS Sunday morning didn’t hurt. Then there is the Penguins story; they were going to leave and all looked dark, then suddenly we were all pulled back from the brink. Between Rendell, Onorato and Ravenstahl, Ravenstahl has clearly benefited the most because Rendell is not running for anything and Onorato is uncontested. Arguably Ravenstahl contributed the least of the three.
So it is no surprise that the local democratic council bestowed their blessing on Ravenstahl, he is our media star, practically a tourist destination. No surprise that Ron Burkle pulled him aside and invited him to New York. I don’t know Burkle, but if he is a FOB (Friend of Bill) he probably has some pull.
By the way, some people have suggested this trip was a violation of ethics. C’mon, get real. The Mayor, this Mayor, is on a different plane (no pun intended). He is basking in the glow of popularity and generating buzz. How could he refuse? I mean, he’s not like that stick in the mud Onorato. Hmm. Back to that in minute.
The thing is, this is a 27 year old politician Mayor. Now there are different kinds of politicians. There are those who play the wonk, like Peduto seems to be (like Adlai Stevenson played an “egghead”, blasted for being a phony by the Kennedy’s, according to Beschloss)(what?). Then there are the campaigners, which is what Ravenstahl seems to be, charming and pretty intelligent, probably enjoys helping people, but also in it to win. Mostly (I suspect) in it to win.
The other thing is, he’s 27. Young enough not to have learned when *not* to be combative. Young enough to think that people care more about the bad thing you do than they do about whether you own up to it. Consider that people believe that Clinton lied, and many think that Bush has lied. Clinton (eventually) owned up and apologized, and even the Republican senate couldn’t quite get rid of him. And he finished the second term with pretty good poll numbers. Much better than Bush’s number right now, the Bush who can’t admit he’s made mistakes.
And Ravenstahl has made mistakes, lying about Heinz field, lying about the New York trip, letting Dennis Regan make bad calls for him, etc. Then there are potential ethical violations. Cost recovery (the lack of) may be a mistake, although the voters probably won't care. Still, as these mistakes begin to pile up, I wonder what the democrats are going to do? They have this novelty figure, but if it turns out he can’t figure out how to behave with the press, can they afford to keep backing him?
I wonder about Dan Onorato. Here he is, a rising star, managing to make the right friends in the party, championing “right sizing” the Port Authority yet escaping any accusation of selling out the county. He’s weathered the assessments mess so far (probably because even expensive property in Pittsburgh would be considered a steal anywhere else). Dan’s worked pretty hard to get where he is, but he is not getting any national press. Suddenly here’s this kid, and everybody is paying attention to him. And what does this kid do with this incredible gift from heaven? He’s risking throwing it all away because he doesn’t know when to tell the truth.
Onorato must be beside himself, Rendell too. When do they start to distance themselves?
If the MSM stays with it, if tough questions get asked in the debates (if there is/are debate(s)), this might be a turning point. Tough questions might get asked too, because reporters have memories, and remember that Luke stonewalled them on the Heinz field thing for months. Or maybe the blogs are too incestuous and the voters still like the spiky hair.
Friday, March 16, 2007
A few thoughts on the Mayor and the campaign
The divide between Mayor Ravenstahl and what I know of the blogging community in Pittsburgh (the part that apparently calls itself the Burghosphere – spelling?) seems to be widening. With the exception of a very polite and reasonable individual going by Matt H, Pittsburgh bloggers seem uniformly to find the find the mayor lacking. There is also a fair amount of half hearted support for Bill Peduto. There are several anonymous posters who support the mayor. I have run a little sideshow here because of my support for Pat Dowd, and there is an anonymous commenter who has challenged my support here and a few other places.
It has been pointed out that the MSM (main street media) has largely ignored the issues battles that have gone on in the Burgosphere. I would argue that the Burgosphere’s battles are genuine ones, questions about finances and ethics. Yet they may be the sorts of things that only policy wonks are interested in. The debates almost resemble something that college students might do, argue over various political issues over a dining hall table. The dining table, I might point out, has a fairly unlimited number of seats, but the participants have a limited attention span, and scrolling through twenty comments gets fairly tiring (especially if the commenters are as long winded as me). You have to be someone who enjoys hearing yourself talk, but you have to be self aware and literate enough to make interesting comments. Rude and stupid comments will be ridiculed as such.
So the Burgosphere is at once democratic and moderately elite. As was pointed out at The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh recently, the MSM is not picking up, or barely acknowledging the issues making the rounds round here. As long as that continues to be the case, I expect the democratic machine will also continue to ignore the Burgosphere.
Mayor Ravenstahl’s campaign has actually set up a fairly significant web site. With streaming video and actually only a few pictures, it is fairly slick. Of course, I would argue that streaming video is a way of avoiding providing actual content, but then so few elections seem to be about content (or policy).
If you look carefully at the non-political blogs, such as The Burgh Blog, while the author mocks the Mayor fairly often, the comments about Ravenstahl seem genuinely split between support and dislike. A recent barrage of comments included several people expressing their support because the Mayor is young, and therefore has “new ideas”. Between the Democrat Committee endorsement, the positive press the Mayor has received and the aversion of the crisis with the Penguins, I personally think the Mayor is a shoe-in in the Primary, and thus in the election.
But ever since the massacre when Bob O’Connor fired BJ Leiber (Lieber?) and two other staffers over the phone (in what I thought was strange circumstances), I think the city has been moving in a dark direction. Denny Regan *may* be out, but ever since O’Connor went into the hospital, city government has been collectively engaged in massive power grabs, thinly veiled as the city "moving forward after tragedy". Mayor Ravenstahl has been in the thick of it, using his position to control the spin as best he can. But lets be clear, I don’t think this Mayor has been particularly good at this. Between the clumsy effort to put his picture on literally every city surface to his obvious pandering to the police union over cost recovery to his refusal to debate Peduto because he (Ravenstahl) is too busy to his demotion of Catherine McNeilly (spelling?) to his initial denials and later tortured story about what happened to him at Heinz Field, this Mayor has shown a lack of experience and sophistication about politics.
Now, I’m not a politician, so I don’t know how much pressure Mayor Ravenstahl is under, and I don’t know the man. He may well be a great guy, a policy wonk, or whatever. But I gotta go with my impression, and my impression is that this is not the Mayor for a city teetering on the edge of bankruptcy (a place where we will be for years if not decades to come). What’s interesting to me is that Peduto (and yes, Dowd) also have web sites, arguably with more content, and clearly are darlings (well, Peduto anyway) of the Burgosphere. I mean, the bloggers would turn on them in a heartbeat if they were in office and made a mis-step, but for now as the under-dogs, many mistakes can be forgiven. This may drive a wedge between the official party and the blogging community. But I think the democratic nature of blogging and commenting is also a part of the future for the party, a wave of new political involvement with a heavy emphasis on policy. I think we are all democrats here, but this particualr primary has indications that the democrats will try to eat their young (love that metaphor).
It has been pointed out that the MSM (main street media) has largely ignored the issues battles that have gone on in the Burgosphere. I would argue that the Burgosphere’s battles are genuine ones, questions about finances and ethics. Yet they may be the sorts of things that only policy wonks are interested in. The debates almost resemble something that college students might do, argue over various political issues over a dining hall table. The dining table, I might point out, has a fairly unlimited number of seats, but the participants have a limited attention span, and scrolling through twenty comments gets fairly tiring (especially if the commenters are as long winded as me). You have to be someone who enjoys hearing yourself talk, but you have to be self aware and literate enough to make interesting comments. Rude and stupid comments will be ridiculed as such.
So the Burgosphere is at once democratic and moderately elite. As was pointed out at The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh recently, the MSM is not picking up, or barely acknowledging the issues making the rounds round here. As long as that continues to be the case, I expect the democratic machine will also continue to ignore the Burgosphere.
Mayor Ravenstahl’s campaign has actually set up a fairly significant web site. With streaming video and actually only a few pictures, it is fairly slick. Of course, I would argue that streaming video is a way of avoiding providing actual content, but then so few elections seem to be about content (or policy).
If you look carefully at the non-political blogs, such as The Burgh Blog, while the author mocks the Mayor fairly often, the comments about Ravenstahl seem genuinely split between support and dislike. A recent barrage of comments included several people expressing their support because the Mayor is young, and therefore has “new ideas”. Between the Democrat Committee endorsement, the positive press the Mayor has received and the aversion of the crisis with the Penguins, I personally think the Mayor is a shoe-in in the Primary, and thus in the election.
But ever since the massacre when Bob O’Connor fired BJ Leiber (Lieber?) and two other staffers over the phone (in what I thought was strange circumstances), I think the city has been moving in a dark direction. Denny Regan *may* be out, but ever since O’Connor went into the hospital, city government has been collectively engaged in massive power grabs, thinly veiled as the city "moving forward after tragedy". Mayor Ravenstahl has been in the thick of it, using his position to control the spin as best he can. But lets be clear, I don’t think this Mayor has been particularly good at this. Between the clumsy effort to put his picture on literally every city surface to his obvious pandering to the police union over cost recovery to his refusal to debate Peduto because he (Ravenstahl) is too busy to his demotion of Catherine McNeilly (spelling?) to his initial denials and later tortured story about what happened to him at Heinz Field, this Mayor has shown a lack of experience and sophistication about politics.
Now, I’m not a politician, so I don’t know how much pressure Mayor Ravenstahl is under, and I don’t know the man. He may well be a great guy, a policy wonk, or whatever. But I gotta go with my impression, and my impression is that this is not the Mayor for a city teetering on the edge of bankruptcy (a place where we will be for years if not decades to come). What’s interesting to me is that Peduto (and yes, Dowd) also have web sites, arguably with more content, and clearly are darlings (well, Peduto anyway) of the Burgosphere. I mean, the bloggers would turn on them in a heartbeat if they were in office and made a mis-step, but for now as the under-dogs, many mistakes can be forgiven. This may drive a wedge between the official party and the blogging community. But I think the democratic nature of blogging and commenting is also a part of the future for the party, a wave of new political involvement with a heavy emphasis on policy. I think we are all democrats here, but this particualr primary has indications that the democrats will try to eat their young (love that metaphor).
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Questions, questions
Where are the Mayoral debates?
Where's Act 47 on the new Arena?
Where's Act 47 (as if it were a person or group of people) on cost recovery?
Where's the ethics board?
Where's Act 47 on the new Arena?
Where's Act 47 (as if it were a person or group of people) on cost recovery?
Where's the ethics board?
Big Announcement
I'm certainly willing to break the big news: Ravenstahl wins primary!
Well, actually the news services are announcing that the Pens deal has been made, but it amounts to the same thing. Now the debates can be scheduled. Maybe the interim Mayor will wear a Pens shirt to them.
The only problem I can see is that the Mayor will have to talk. Then again, Bush had to talk in his debates too.
Well, actually the news services are announcing that the Pens deal has been made, but it amounts to the same thing. Now the debates can be scheduled. Maybe the interim Mayor will wear a Pens shirt to them.
The only problem I can see is that the Mayor will have to talk. Then again, Bush had to talk in his debates too.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Not really posting ...
SO … I’m still having fun (and depleting my best ideas) posting over on 2politicalJunkies and The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh. So I don’t really have anything to say here that is earth shattering. Pat Dowd’s campaign seems to have been somewhat over shadowed in the Burghosphere (or whatever the small coven of Pittsburgh bloggers is calling it). I just got an email about from his campaign manager about the meeting of the local democratic committee for endorsements. It’s too bad the burgh’s blogosphere is ignoring Dr Dowd, he looks to be just as nerdy as Bill Peduto. If (by some miracle) Peduto should win the primary (and thus the election), who will be the resident nerd for city council? Is Bill Peduto’s council seat opening up, or will there be yet another “special” election (I am incapable of being politically correct; unbidden, thoughts of “special” election candidates running twitching down a Pittsburgh street a la Python’s Upper Class Twit of the Year rumble up from my sub-conscious). Ehh, better stop there.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Ruth Ann Dailey's contribution to C-D
Jeeze, I didn’t realize how long it had been since I posted here. And its late, so I can’t stay long …
My site meter reported no visitors last week. Can you hack site meters? Probably. Probably ticked someone off.
So, I have been commenting some on 2PoliticalJunkies on Ruth Ann Dailey’s columns about Nancy Pelosi’s plane. She’s done the two. I realized I really *had* to say something here about what she had written because it really is a pretty good example of cognitive dissonance. It started as a pretty juicy story in the Washington Times. Pelosi asking for a big converted 757 (I think) military plane to take her back and forth between DC and SF, and probably to ferry family and friends as well. Ruth Ann wrote a column, apparently based on a Washington Times piece, talking about this. Apparently the story unraveled a bit when the House Sergeant at Arms said that he had made the request, and the size of the plane was based on the need for a longer range given that the last Speaker’s (Denny Hastert) district is about half as far away. The Speaker of the House is, I believe, third in line of Presidential Succession. Now, Ruth Ann’s first column started with the notion that democrats are sometimes as corrupt as republicans. Not a bad notion, something that honest observers of politics should agree with, and indeed, a good reminder to liberal citizens to keep a sharp watch on the politicians they like, to help keep them in office. Ruth Ann also I believe quoted from the Washington Times about some statements/threats Jack Murtha might have made if Pelosi didn’t get her plane. I believe Murtha could have made the statements, he is increasingly striking me as a bit of a loose cannon. An important loose cannon, because of his status as a former democrat hawk and because of seniority, but still a loose cannon. Still, after Ruth Ann wrote the first column, the story seemed to unravel a bit.
The interesting thing was the second column, because at this point Ruth Ann had to admit that the facts were reported differently in several other media outlets. Even the White House had largely dismissed the story. What Ruth Ann did was to hold fast to her original viewpoint: “Close reading of all the news available, however, reveals that none of the reports cancels others out.”
Now, frankly, on 2PJ I expressed the opinion that the House Sergeant at Arms might be sucking up to the new Speaker, and I say this because I know savvy bureaucrats in fact to suck up to legislators, since the legislators tend to control purse strings. On the other hand, the common sense arguments about the Speaker being safer flying non-stop are pretty compelling. Now, is Pelosi likely to take constituents and family on this plane? If she can, but remember that Air Force One also takes people besides the President on trips, and the President routinely uses Air Force One to fly to fund raising events, something we are not likely to see the Speaker do with her airplane.
The thing is that Ruth Ann was unable to concede that the Speaker’s motives were in fact *not* political or corrupt, or perhaps that the Speaker had not even had motives since she was not one to ask for a particular type of plane. Ruth Ann had to explain away the behavior of the White House and what was said in virtually the entire main stream media in order to hold onto her view of Pelosi.
Richard Cottom introduced me to the idea of cognitive dissonance and perceptual motivation in political behavior. In one example, Cottom expressed it in terms of people’s individual realizations that though they had considered themselves part of the fight against communism for more than two decades, one by one they realized the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with that fight (or at best very little). They had explained every action of the Vietnamese (and us) in cognitively dissonant ways, everything tracking back to Moscow (and our needing to destroy Vietnam in order to save it). Eventually, though, Americans simply ran out of ways to look at that fight in the cold war context. Ruth Ann’s second column was like a flashback to the conservative holdouts in the Vietnam war era, the people who said that just because the facts were contradictory didn’t mean that it wasn’t Moscow behind the scenes, or that we weren’t the good guys. Of course, this brings up an unwanted sense of déjà vu. Apparently we couldn’t have won Vietnam, yet if we somehow had, would America have been as disillusioned in the Seventies (or as Dazed and Confused)? If we were actually winning in Iraq, would the democrats have done as well in the ‘06 midterms?
All that aside, Ruth Ann’s second column is as naked an example of cognitive dissonance as I have seen recently. A fine lesson and a cautionary example for us all.
My site meter reported no visitors last week. Can you hack site meters? Probably. Probably ticked someone off.
So, I have been commenting some on 2PoliticalJunkies on Ruth Ann Dailey’s columns about Nancy Pelosi’s plane. She’s done the two. I realized I really *had* to say something here about what she had written because it really is a pretty good example of cognitive dissonance. It started as a pretty juicy story in the Washington Times. Pelosi asking for a big converted 757 (I think) military plane to take her back and forth between DC and SF, and probably to ferry family and friends as well. Ruth Ann wrote a column, apparently based on a Washington Times piece, talking about this. Apparently the story unraveled a bit when the House Sergeant at Arms said that he had made the request, and the size of the plane was based on the need for a longer range given that the last Speaker’s (Denny Hastert) district is about half as far away. The Speaker of the House is, I believe, third in line of Presidential Succession. Now, Ruth Ann’s first column started with the notion that democrats are sometimes as corrupt as republicans. Not a bad notion, something that honest observers of politics should agree with, and indeed, a good reminder to liberal citizens to keep a sharp watch on the politicians they like, to help keep them in office. Ruth Ann also I believe quoted from the Washington Times about some statements/threats Jack Murtha might have made if Pelosi didn’t get her plane. I believe Murtha could have made the statements, he is increasingly striking me as a bit of a loose cannon. An important loose cannon, because of his status as a former democrat hawk and because of seniority, but still a loose cannon. Still, after Ruth Ann wrote the first column, the story seemed to unravel a bit.
The interesting thing was the second column, because at this point Ruth Ann had to admit that the facts were reported differently in several other media outlets. Even the White House had largely dismissed the story. What Ruth Ann did was to hold fast to her original viewpoint: “Close reading of all the news available, however, reveals that none of the reports cancels others out.”
Now, frankly, on 2PJ I expressed the opinion that the House Sergeant at Arms might be sucking up to the new Speaker, and I say this because I know savvy bureaucrats in fact to suck up to legislators, since the legislators tend to control purse strings. On the other hand, the common sense arguments about the Speaker being safer flying non-stop are pretty compelling. Now, is Pelosi likely to take constituents and family on this plane? If she can, but remember that Air Force One also takes people besides the President on trips, and the President routinely uses Air Force One to fly to fund raising events, something we are not likely to see the Speaker do with her airplane.
The thing is that Ruth Ann was unable to concede that the Speaker’s motives were in fact *not* political or corrupt, or perhaps that the Speaker had not even had motives since she was not one to ask for a particular type of plane. Ruth Ann had to explain away the behavior of the White House and what was said in virtually the entire main stream media in order to hold onto her view of Pelosi.
Richard Cottom introduced me to the idea of cognitive dissonance and perceptual motivation in political behavior. In one example, Cottom expressed it in terms of people’s individual realizations that though they had considered themselves part of the fight against communism for more than two decades, one by one they realized the war in Vietnam had nothing to do with that fight (or at best very little). They had explained every action of the Vietnamese (and us) in cognitively dissonant ways, everything tracking back to Moscow (and our needing to destroy Vietnam in order to save it). Eventually, though, Americans simply ran out of ways to look at that fight in the cold war context. Ruth Ann’s second column was like a flashback to the conservative holdouts in the Vietnam war era, the people who said that just because the facts were contradictory didn’t mean that it wasn’t Moscow behind the scenes, or that we weren’t the good guys. Of course, this brings up an unwanted sense of déjà vu. Apparently we couldn’t have won Vietnam, yet if we somehow had, would America have been as disillusioned in the Seventies (or as Dazed and Confused)? If we were actually winning in Iraq, would the democrats have done as well in the ‘06 midterms?
All that aside, Ruth Ann’s second column is as naked an example of cognitive dissonance as I have seen recently. A fine lesson and a cautionary example for us all.
Friday, February 09, 2007
PAT comment
Today at 4:00 is the deadline for comments on the PAT's "right sizing", on their website. I guess this is not a public service in posting the deadline, unless you submit at lunch (or have the free time to submit). Below I post the comment I made this morning (just under the wire). As proof that I submitted, I will repeat the confirmation message I saw when I did submit: "You comment is appreciated" or something like that. I am guilty of dropping that "r" quite frequently from "your", still every time I see the word Luigi floats to the top of my consciousness.
I want to express my dismay at the proposed cuts and fare increases in bus service for Allegheny County. I do not want to blame particular individuals and I want to express understanding for taxpayers who live outside Allegheny County and outside the county(s) served by Philadelphia’s mass transit system. Paying for (subsidizing) someone else’s bus service seems unreasonable. But just like everyone pays for public schools because we all benefit from more educated, more employable citizens, the state benefits from Pittsburgh’s public transit in measurable ways, and even somewhat less measurable. There is a section on the Port Authority website:
http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/CustomerInfo/GetInvolved/BenefitsofTransit/tabid/142/Default.aspx
that describes the benefits of public transit. I would call attention to the sections that mention reducing pollution and improving employment by making it possible for people to work further from their home (either comfortably or even at all). Less pollution particularly improves public health and adds that intangible quality of life benefit that some people deeply value. A stronger Pittsburgh in terms of employment and a gentler Pittsburgh in terms of our contribution to pollution are tangible contributions back to the rest of the state.
I don’t have any especially insightful suggestions. I think the county government needs to step up and find and offer a dedicated funding source. A good symbolic gesture would be a tax on SUV’s, or any non-commercial vehicle either weighing over a certain tonnage or with a power to weight ratio in excess of a certain percentage (i.e. a sports car). I would argue against a sales tax, since it tends to fall more regressively on the poor.
I think that the drivers and mechanics may have to be asked to at least freeze their wages. Ideally they would offer to do at least that, because there is a certain unfairness in the citizens of Allegheny County asking them to do that. I realize that as a union, the structure of the thing is such that the most senior employees would oppose a wage cut (their jobs won’t be cut). I would suggest that if a wage cut is proposed, 10% or 20% or whatever, management (all management) simply adopt it first before proposing it to the drivers and mechanics. That would be the way to start to show real leadership, and to approach the issue with a degree of moral authority.
All that said, the real issue of buses running with only two or three riders at night is a real problem. Still, simply cutting a route that has rush hour riders and serves remote neighborhoods is punishing Allegheny County for not having fixed PAT in the past. Even if the routes that are due to be eliminated are simply cut in half, that should save a considerable amount of money and preserve the ability of those who can’t drive or who are unable to, to still move around the city. It may inconvenience them, but a greater inconvenience would be to have to walk (or perhaps roll) an extra two or three miles in sub zero temperatures.
I would ask for consideration of the suggestions many others make, like switching to the smaller buses in between the rush hours and after rush hour. The hub and spoke idea should be tried (or expanded upon), it may not work, Pittsburghers may refuse, but at least you will have tried.
Finally, I would propose cutting fares, even a token amount. If Public transportation serves a public purpose and mission, it should not b trying to use fares to balance its budget. Lower fares might pay for themselves through increased rider ship (like lower taxes actually increase revenues, right republicans?). More importantly, though, increasing the number of riders increases the level of all those public benefits mentioned before (and on the PAT website), less pollution, less traffic congestion, easier parking for those who still need to, an improved employment picture for Pittsburgh, and a public service for the poor. More inexpensive public transportation for Allegheny County would promote the kind of revitalization the county wants to see.
My own stake in this issue is not strictly personal. I drive to work right now because I am working two jobs with a tight middle commute. I have a University ID, so I can ride the bus for free. I recently bought a folding bike, partly to be able to take it on buses, any bus, not just those with the bike racks. I believe in public transportation as one of those government agencies that can serve the public good. There will always be complaints and bumps in the road. But these route cuts and fare increases will be a permanent blow to the public’s opinion of PAT.
I want to express my dismay at the proposed cuts and fare increases in bus service for Allegheny County. I do not want to blame particular individuals and I want to express understanding for taxpayers who live outside Allegheny County and outside the county(s) served by Philadelphia’s mass transit system. Paying for (subsidizing) someone else’s bus service seems unreasonable. But just like everyone pays for public schools because we all benefit from more educated, more employable citizens, the state benefits from Pittsburgh’s public transit in measurable ways, and even somewhat less measurable. There is a section on the Port Authority website:
http://www.portauthority.org/PAAC/CustomerInfo/GetInvolved/BenefitsofTransit/tabid/142/Default.aspx
that describes the benefits of public transit. I would call attention to the sections that mention reducing pollution and improving employment by making it possible for people to work further from their home (either comfortably or even at all). Less pollution particularly improves public health and adds that intangible quality of life benefit that some people deeply value. A stronger Pittsburgh in terms of employment and a gentler Pittsburgh in terms of our contribution to pollution are tangible contributions back to the rest of the state.
I don’t have any especially insightful suggestions. I think the county government needs to step up and find and offer a dedicated funding source. A good symbolic gesture would be a tax on SUV’s, or any non-commercial vehicle either weighing over a certain tonnage or with a power to weight ratio in excess of a certain percentage (i.e. a sports car). I would argue against a sales tax, since it tends to fall more regressively on the poor.
I think that the drivers and mechanics may have to be asked to at least freeze their wages. Ideally they would offer to do at least that, because there is a certain unfairness in the citizens of Allegheny County asking them to do that. I realize that as a union, the structure of the thing is such that the most senior employees would oppose a wage cut (their jobs won’t be cut). I would suggest that if a wage cut is proposed, 10% or 20% or whatever, management (all management) simply adopt it first before proposing it to the drivers and mechanics. That would be the way to start to show real leadership, and to approach the issue with a degree of moral authority.
All that said, the real issue of buses running with only two or three riders at night is a real problem. Still, simply cutting a route that has rush hour riders and serves remote neighborhoods is punishing Allegheny County for not having fixed PAT in the past. Even if the routes that are due to be eliminated are simply cut in half, that should save a considerable amount of money and preserve the ability of those who can’t drive or who are unable to, to still move around the city. It may inconvenience them, but a greater inconvenience would be to have to walk (or perhaps roll) an extra two or three miles in sub zero temperatures.
I would ask for consideration of the suggestions many others make, like switching to the smaller buses in between the rush hours and after rush hour. The hub and spoke idea should be tried (or expanded upon), it may not work, Pittsburghers may refuse, but at least you will have tried.
Finally, I would propose cutting fares, even a token amount. If Public transportation serves a public purpose and mission, it should not b trying to use fares to balance its budget. Lower fares might pay for themselves through increased rider ship (like lower taxes actually increase revenues, right republicans?). More importantly, though, increasing the number of riders increases the level of all those public benefits mentioned before (and on the PAT website), less pollution, less traffic congestion, easier parking for those who still need to, an improved employment picture for Pittsburgh, and a public service for the poor. More inexpensive public transportation for Allegheny County would promote the kind of revitalization the county wants to see.
My own stake in this issue is not strictly personal. I drive to work right now because I am working two jobs with a tight middle commute. I have a University ID, so I can ride the bus for free. I recently bought a folding bike, partly to be able to take it on buses, any bus, not just those with the bike racks. I believe in public transportation as one of those government agencies that can serve the public good. There will always be complaints and bumps in the road. But these route cuts and fare increases will be a permanent blow to the public’s opinion of PAT.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Less hesitant statements
I just recently saw Dr. Dowd’s video from his website (www.dowdforpittsburgh.org), the short version of his campaign announcement. The extent of my involvement in his campaign has pretty much been documented here, I have yet to go to his campaign headquarters, or do any volunteering (if I am so inlcined). But I want to say that he is saying, if not all the, then many right things, in my opinion. I am cynical about politicians and politics, how can you not be if you spend any time following politics? But I try to look with a clear enough eye to see that mostly this time is no worse, if no better, than any time in a variety of pasts, stretching from my lifetime on back. Which is to say my cynicism is itself tempered with a realization that all politicians are people, and therefore none should be seen as a saint. But some are better than others. If Dr. Dowd’s record is a short one and not from council, at least he is saying right things. If he is only able to follow through on one or two of what he is talking about, such as putting in place public measurements of city government progress or fighting for public transit, then Pittsburgh will be a better place. Or at least no worse than it is now. If that sounds like damning with faint praise, from experience I will say that faint progress is pretty well miraculous for most politicians. The ones around here seem trapped in the old time union rust belt mentality, so any new point of view is worth taking a look at. In my opinion.
Saturday, January 27, 2007
Health care
I posted this puppy largely verbatim over on Fester’s Place, in response to his post on the difference between US and over developed nations health care costs.
There was an article in the NYTimes a few days ago; the guy who created the “South Beach Diet” turns out to have been a cardiologist for years before he created the SBD. He opened a practice after his books first came out, and in it his doctors and nurses actually spend a lot of time with patients, work with them on diet and exercise, in other words, those low cost things that help us stay healthy, statistically speaking. And in his practice, according to what he tells the Times, there is very little uncontrolled heart disease (he is claiming rate something like point three percent of his patients had a heart attack last year). And he finds that his practice loses money in a big way.
Private medicine turns out to have little incentive to push preventative care. Your doctor makes a lot more money if he talks to you only for a moment and otherwise interacts with you through expensive tests, procedures and drugs. The people who do have the incentive to push preventative care, unfortunately, have no traditional role in health care: the government and your employer.
Health insurance companies, to some extent, certainly do have an incentive for you to pay premiums and not submit claims. And the best preventative care program I ever saw was at Blue Cross (now Highmark) offered to employees when I worked there. But I suspect that Blue Cross and Aetna and UPMC and so on would be worried they would eventually have to reduce premiums if fewer claims were submitted.
I personally would like to see a candidate for City Council (hint, hint) incorporate these ideas into his platform; that city employees and retirees would be put on an aggressive wellness program, to reduce costs across the board. Not only would the city benefit, but it could serve as a showcase plan for what is possible.
There was an article in the NYTimes a few days ago; the guy who created the “South Beach Diet” turns out to have been a cardiologist for years before he created the SBD. He opened a practice after his books first came out, and in it his doctors and nurses actually spend a lot of time with patients, work with them on diet and exercise, in other words, those low cost things that help us stay healthy, statistically speaking. And in his practice, according to what he tells the Times, there is very little uncontrolled heart disease (he is claiming rate something like point three percent of his patients had a heart attack last year). And he finds that his practice loses money in a big way.
Private medicine turns out to have little incentive to push preventative care. Your doctor makes a lot more money if he talks to you only for a moment and otherwise interacts with you through expensive tests, procedures and drugs. The people who do have the incentive to push preventative care, unfortunately, have no traditional role in health care: the government and your employer.
Health insurance companies, to some extent, certainly do have an incentive for you to pay premiums and not submit claims. And the best preventative care program I ever saw was at Blue Cross (now Highmark) offered to employees when I worked there. But I suspect that Blue Cross and Aetna and UPMC and so on would be worried they would eventually have to reduce premiums if fewer claims were submitted.
I personally would like to see a candidate for City Council (hint, hint) incorporate these ideas into his platform; that city employees and retirees would be put on an aggressive wellness program, to reduce costs across the board. Not only would the city benefit, but it could serve as a showcase plan for what is possible.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Mayor Luke and, seperately, health care
Just some things, freehand, off the top of my head. First, I just read a comparison between Clinton and Mayor Luke (from the “People’s Republic of Pittsburgh”?). Good comparison; what was her name, Linda Tripp? There’s always a Linda Tripp. There probably don’t get what they want out of snitching, but the point is they do. Mayor Luke has had two controversies in a few weeks, between the McNeilly/Reagan thing and now the stadium incident. In both situations the most important thing is that Mayor Luke has shown poor judgment and political skills. It is stating the obvious that he is young, but there it is. I caught him on Delano’s Business report Sunday morning, and he is just not that impressive a speaker, at least off the cuff. The fact that he is in fact college educated just shows how little a BA is worth today.
Apparently Bush’s Saturday radio broadcast called for health care/insurance reform. It is being seen as a precursor of the State of the Union. It sounds like Bush wants to go further down the road of people using HSA’s as their health care./insurance mechanism. What’s new is that, incredibly, Bush complained about people who opt into better health insurance plans. He called them “gold plated” and wants to tax high end plans. Well, all this is what Krugman said in his column today, I am making the assumption that it is true. More later…
Apparently Bush’s Saturday radio broadcast called for health care/insurance reform. It is being seen as a precursor of the State of the Union. It sounds like Bush wants to go further down the road of people using HSA’s as their health care./insurance mechanism. What’s new is that, incredibly, Bush complained about people who opt into better health insurance plans. He called them “gold plated” and wants to tax high end plans. Well, all this is what Krugman said in his column today, I am making the assumption that it is true. More later…
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Pat Dowd part deux
Must ... resist ... urge ... to ... start ... post ... with ... "So". (should resist urge to be Shatnerian)
errrr, I have to say the Dowd campaign got back to me in an actually fairly timely fashion. And Yahoo promptly dumped their emails into my spam folder (they call it bulk mail, as if I should avoid internet launched packages ...). Yahoo also dumped the work schedule for the part time tax job into the bulk folder. Of course, I missed all those messages for several days. Well, I just need to be vigilant with the spam folder. Dowd’s campaign manager had read my blog post (Google?), and suggested I call if I had other ideas (call? not email? but email never has problems). Nah, those ideas I put in my last post were pretty much it. If I can’t think on a big scale, I tend to get bored and unfocused. But she said they want to be an idea’s campaign, and I think that’s a great thing. Definitely a way to distinguish themselves from Mr. Bodack and the traditional democratic infrastructure. Might dovetail with the upcoming Peduto campaign, but doesn’t have to.
errrr, I have to say the Dowd campaign got back to me in an actually fairly timely fashion. And Yahoo promptly dumped their emails into my spam folder (they call it bulk mail, as if I should avoid internet launched packages ...). Yahoo also dumped the work schedule for the part time tax job into the bulk folder. Of course, I missed all those messages for several days. Well, I just need to be vigilant with the spam folder. Dowd’s campaign manager had read my blog post (Google?), and suggested I call if I had other ideas (call? not email? but email never has problems). Nah, those ideas I put in my last post were pretty much it. If I can’t think on a big scale, I tend to get bored and unfocused. But she said they want to be an idea’s campaign, and I think that’s a great thing. Definitely a way to distinguish themselves from Mr. Bodack and the traditional democratic infrastructure. Might dovetail with the upcoming Peduto campaign, but doesn’t have to.
Wednesday, January 10, 2007
Pat Dowd for something ...
So, something of a gearshift from my usual nationally oriented posts. Last week I got a flyer saying Pat Dowd is running for City Council in my district. Being who I am, I noticed right away there was no website address. There was an email for Mr. Dowd (not his campaign, supposedly, him), something like Patrick @ dowdforpittsburg.org. No “h” on Pittsburgh. So I tried www.dowdforpittsburgh.org and there it was. There were other problems, though, in email addresses on the website itself that bounced.
But what was sort of cool was that Pat Dowd went door to door in my neck of the woods (Stanton Heights) on Sunday, so I got to meet him. And he remembered me from one of the emails I had sent. And he had already fixed at least the flyer.
So we chatted for a while, he got going and then suddenly exited himself (I expect he had a lot of ground to cover and couldn’t afford to stay any one place for too long). What we chatted about was not that impressive. He is running in part on his record on the school board. I gotta to say I don’t see the connection. He talked about the level of long term debt the city has (its high, I’ll take his word for it). He didn’t mention a specific solution, but referenced the notion that outside entities are more likely to help you when you have a more professional council. He made the connection between the school board before he came in and its troubles with the foundations and now. This is the way he is running on his record. He talked about metrics, about getting more information out about the city. And we talked a bit about the 311 number. He agreed Mayor Luke had done some good things, but maybe we need to do better.
I have to concede, I may not have gotten all or any of the points Mr. Dowd was making, or where he was going or trying to tie things together to. He may have been more subtle than I was ready for.
So I’m not totally convinced, but I’ve never even met Len Bodack, he has not gone door to door in my neighborhood. I don’t know that I agree with all of Mr. Dowd’s positions, actually I don’t know hardly any of them. But I don’t know any of Mr. Bodack’s at all. Dr. Dowd has a doctorate, I believe Mr. Bodack did not finish an undergrad.
What I would like to see Dowd do is step up to some politically neutral but technically smart *policies*.
Let’s see the city alter it’s healthcare plan by requiring employees, retirees and any family covered to get a yearly physical, and also to participate in a healthy lifestyle program that examines health factors like cholesterol, weight, exercise and whether you smoke, and rewards those employees with parameters considered healthy. The reduction in absenteeism and possible increases in productivity would be well worth it.
Let’s see an expansion of the 311 lines hours, and expand it to take non-emergency police calls.
Let’s look at whether adopting the European style of road work, where the road bed is more extensively prepared than it is here, might yield a long term cost savings.
Let’s have the city set what examples it can, with maybe hybrid cars (maybe just the Ford Escape, since we need to buy American) and what ever other green technologies can be found. CMU and Phipps could provide input.
So there’s stuff Pat Dowd can do, and I will do my part to nag him, if he gets elected. But it seems pretty likely he is going to get my vote anyway. I hate politicians because they always break your heart, but in the end I can’t claim to be any better of a person (and usually a worse one). There might be high expectations for Pat Dowd, and that might mean a bigger letdown. But at the end of the day he is still preferable to Mr. Bodack.
But what was sort of cool was that Pat Dowd went door to door in my neck of the woods (Stanton Heights) on Sunday, so I got to meet him. And he remembered me from one of the emails I had sent. And he had already fixed at least the flyer.
So we chatted for a while, he got going and then suddenly exited himself (I expect he had a lot of ground to cover and couldn’t afford to stay any one place for too long). What we chatted about was not that impressive. He is running in part on his record on the school board. I gotta to say I don’t see the connection. He talked about the level of long term debt the city has (its high, I’ll take his word for it). He didn’t mention a specific solution, but referenced the notion that outside entities are more likely to help you when you have a more professional council. He made the connection between the school board before he came in and its troubles with the foundations and now. This is the way he is running on his record. He talked about metrics, about getting more information out about the city. And we talked a bit about the 311 number. He agreed Mayor Luke had done some good things, but maybe we need to do better.
I have to concede, I may not have gotten all or any of the points Mr. Dowd was making, or where he was going or trying to tie things together to. He may have been more subtle than I was ready for.
So I’m not totally convinced, but I’ve never even met Len Bodack, he has not gone door to door in my neighborhood. I don’t know that I agree with all of Mr. Dowd’s positions, actually I don’t know hardly any of them. But I don’t know any of Mr. Bodack’s at all. Dr. Dowd has a doctorate, I believe Mr. Bodack did not finish an undergrad.
What I would like to see Dowd do is step up to some politically neutral but technically smart *policies*.
Let’s see the city alter it’s healthcare plan by requiring employees, retirees and any family covered to get a yearly physical, and also to participate in a healthy lifestyle program that examines health factors like cholesterol, weight, exercise and whether you smoke, and rewards those employees with parameters considered healthy. The reduction in absenteeism and possible increases in productivity would be well worth it.
Let’s see an expansion of the 311 lines hours, and expand it to take non-emergency police calls.
Let’s look at whether adopting the European style of road work, where the road bed is more extensively prepared than it is here, might yield a long term cost savings.
Let’s have the city set what examples it can, with maybe hybrid cars (maybe just the Ford Escape, since we need to buy American) and what ever other green technologies can be found. CMU and Phipps could provide input.
So there’s stuff Pat Dowd can do, and I will do my part to nag him, if he gets elected. But it seems pretty likely he is going to get my vote anyway. I hate politicians because they always break your heart, but in the end I can’t claim to be any better of a person (and usually a worse one). There might be high expectations for Pat Dowd, and that might mean a bigger letdown. But at the end of the day he is still preferable to Mr. Bodack.
Monday, January 08, 2007
You know, my last post requires some revisiting. Ford may not have been a cheerleader in chief, which is why (I think, and off the top of my head) Whip Inflation Now really had little force behind it. But the 60 minutes story on Betty Ford reminded me of what an extraordinarily decent man Gerald Ford was, which is a thing in itself. If only Nixon could go to China and Bill Clinton could reform Welfare, maybe only Ford could pardon Nixon. Anyone else, and the Congress might well have stepped in to nullify the pardon, or do some other thing.
And Ford brings us back to Vietnam. Frank Rich actually nails my thoughts fairly closely (usually he is a bit too much for my tastes). The issue of this surge is Vietnam versus Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets invaded Czecko in ’68, they dropped on them like a ton of bricks. If this “surge” is not a ton of bricks, then it is more like the escalation in Vietnam, giving an enemy more targets, and turning neutrals or friends into enemies. Lindsey Graham, on Meet the Press on Sunday, kept asking whether we want to think about what happens if we lose in Iraq. He didn’t want, I think we have to now.
And Ford brings us back to Vietnam. Frank Rich actually nails my thoughts fairly closely (usually he is a bit too much for my tastes). The issue of this surge is Vietnam versus Czechoslovakia. When the Soviets invaded Czecko in ’68, they dropped on them like a ton of bricks. If this “surge” is not a ton of bricks, then it is more like the escalation in Vietnam, giving an enemy more targets, and turning neutrals or friends into enemies. Lindsey Graham, on Meet the Press on Sunday, kept asking whether we want to think about what happens if we lose in Iraq. He didn’t want, I think we have to now.
Saturday, January 06, 2007
I am going to try for two points here, before I try a long run on the Nordic Trak. First, Brent Scowcroft’s Friday contribution to the NYT essentially endorses a “surge” of troops, the new term for putting in the number of people (or closer to the number) that we should have had in the first place. And I am firmly in this camp. Now, maybe reality does not support the policy, maybe there are too few troops. And maybe this is too late (if it is also too little, then I don’t support it). But I think Iraq needs a period were violence is a lot more difficult. I don’t care if we bus Iraq trainees to Jordan or France, so they have to show up for training, for six weeks or six months or even two weeks. If, after a period of relative calm, the Iraqis can’t get it together, then we can say we (sorta) tried. But right now we are relying on the restraint of Iraqi insurgents, since we have too few troops in country, and that’s pretty silly.
The mania for Gerald Ford retrospectives goes on, and I want to throw my two cents in. We need a man like Ford today, but not particularly as President. Far more we need him as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader. I am still not reconciled to the notion that the President needs to be a bully, but I am coming to realize that the President needs to try to set an agenda, and you need to speak out to do that. I don’t know how Ford worked exactly in the House, but I believe he was one of those old time operators who worked without an agenda except to serve his district and his party, over the long haul. That means making deals with the other side time and time again. If you have to reneg on the deal, you have to be able to explain it. This is the thing, though. A reporter on Washington Week told the story of how Ford, as president, made a point of inviting George McGovern to a White House Dinner. McGovern remarked that he had not been to the White House in either the Johnson or Nixon years, and Ford replied simply that he knew that. And that is a fine thing, in fact it reminds me (in contrast) of Cheney’s famous use of the F-word with Pat Leahy. Cheney apparently didn’t spend enough time in the House to know that you deal with these people again and again (and now Pat Leahy is chair of Senate Judiciary). But at the risk of sounding contradictory, I think Ford was too far in the direction of conciliator. Some blog I read (Tube City? The Conversation?) suggested Ford was a best an average President. I have agree with the sentiment if not the reasons. I think was unused to the spotlight, was maybe more of a behind the scenes guy. Well, if you are President I think you have staff for the behind the scenes stuff. I remember someone saying the Clinton often struck people as the smartest guy in the room. If he paid attention to you, you felt the weight of it and the sense of gratification (that a smart guy thinks you idea is good). I have heard similar things, strangely, about Nixon. Obviously it would be different with Reagan or JFK, but a similar sense of gratification that such a charismatic person would care about your opinion. Ford lacked the kind of ego that helps us pay attention to the President. And dare I say it, the President needs to be cheerleader in chief, needs to be able to get enough of us excited or motivated about things. Lincoln obviously had that, as well as an exquisite sense of timing (eg, a majority of us elected him to keep the Union together, later a majority of us supported freeing the slaves). The current Bush gained the ability to convince a thin majority of us that he felt strongly about our safety after 9/11, the ’02 midterms and ’04 general election show us that. But since he linked our safety to success in Iraq, and defined success in Iraq only loosely as a democracy (identical to ours?), he seems to have lost power as cheer leader in chief.
One full page of Word, single space, that’s enough. Off to Nordic Trak.
The mania for Gerald Ford retrospectives goes on, and I want to throw my two cents in. We need a man like Ford today, but not particularly as President. Far more we need him as Speaker of the House or Senate Majority leader. I am still not reconciled to the notion that the President needs to be a bully, but I am coming to realize that the President needs to try to set an agenda, and you need to speak out to do that. I don’t know how Ford worked exactly in the House, but I believe he was one of those old time operators who worked without an agenda except to serve his district and his party, over the long haul. That means making deals with the other side time and time again. If you have to reneg on the deal, you have to be able to explain it. This is the thing, though. A reporter on Washington Week told the story of how Ford, as president, made a point of inviting George McGovern to a White House Dinner. McGovern remarked that he had not been to the White House in either the Johnson or Nixon years, and Ford replied simply that he knew that. And that is a fine thing, in fact it reminds me (in contrast) of Cheney’s famous use of the F-word with Pat Leahy. Cheney apparently didn’t spend enough time in the House to know that you deal with these people again and again (and now Pat Leahy is chair of Senate Judiciary). But at the risk of sounding contradictory, I think Ford was too far in the direction of conciliator. Some blog I read (Tube City? The Conversation?) suggested Ford was a best an average President. I have agree with the sentiment if not the reasons. I think was unused to the spotlight, was maybe more of a behind the scenes guy. Well, if you are President I think you have staff for the behind the scenes stuff. I remember someone saying the Clinton often struck people as the smartest guy in the room. If he paid attention to you, you felt the weight of it and the sense of gratification (that a smart guy thinks you idea is good). I have heard similar things, strangely, about Nixon. Obviously it would be different with Reagan or JFK, but a similar sense of gratification that such a charismatic person would care about your opinion. Ford lacked the kind of ego that helps us pay attention to the President. And dare I say it, the President needs to be cheerleader in chief, needs to be able to get enough of us excited or motivated about things. Lincoln obviously had that, as well as an exquisite sense of timing (eg, a majority of us elected him to keep the Union together, later a majority of us supported freeing the slaves). The current Bush gained the ability to convince a thin majority of us that he felt strongly about our safety after 9/11, the ’02 midterms and ’04 general election show us that. But since he linked our safety to success in Iraq, and defined success in Iraq only loosely as a democracy (identical to ours?), he seems to have lost power as cheer leader in chief.
One full page of Word, single space, that’s enough. Off to Nordic Trak.
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
So I am still not posting as much as I should. Stirring up trouble on other people’s blogs is frankly so much more fun …
I seem to annoy people when I say I haven’t researched an issue. Maybe I should just pretend to be an expert, but I am trying not too. I still believe that my opinions are somewhat informed, but I should say too my own standards for research are somewhat high. I don’t really want to accept something just because a liberal or conservative website says it’s true. I am willing to discuss anything, however, from a single source website. Just as an aside, I am still impressed with wikipedia as a source of information. It is fun to read the debates about content presented.
So I have just a little thought to follow. I will start by saying that I believe the President really values loyalty, to the point where it blinds him. How else to understand the lack of reconstruction progress in Iraq? I mean, seriously, how could a President let that go for so long? I don’t buy this Bush is an idiot stuff, no one goes through Yale and Harvard Business School as a total idiot. I’m sure his father’s name got him in and may have bought him some slack, just enough for him to question his own abilities, but still Dubbya actually has to have a bit going on upstairs. But I think a lot of the contractors in Iraq are friends or donors, or friends of donors. So we have this vast plundering of government money.
But we have seen the President turn on those who he feels are disloyal (mostly those who question him in public). I am thinking particularly of O’Neill and Powell. But, here’s what I am wondering about now. If the President dumps people who are disloyal, how will he react to the public now disapproving of his conduct of the war and of other public policies? I guess maybe he will be even more helpful to his wealthy supporters, at the expense of the general public. Minimum wage? Maybe not. Tax reform headed the other direction (a different definition of reform)? Better find a two thirds majority.
Just a predication, that the last two years of the Bush White House will resemble a wagon train with the wagons circled.
I seem to annoy people when I say I haven’t researched an issue. Maybe I should just pretend to be an expert, but I am trying not too. I still believe that my opinions are somewhat informed, but I should say too my own standards for research are somewhat high. I don’t really want to accept something just because a liberal or conservative website says it’s true. I am willing to discuss anything, however, from a single source website. Just as an aside, I am still impressed with wikipedia as a source of information. It is fun to read the debates about content presented.
So I have just a little thought to follow. I will start by saying that I believe the President really values loyalty, to the point where it blinds him. How else to understand the lack of reconstruction progress in Iraq? I mean, seriously, how could a President let that go for so long? I don’t buy this Bush is an idiot stuff, no one goes through Yale and Harvard Business School as a total idiot. I’m sure his father’s name got him in and may have bought him some slack, just enough for him to question his own abilities, but still Dubbya actually has to have a bit going on upstairs. But I think a lot of the contractors in Iraq are friends or donors, or friends of donors. So we have this vast plundering of government money.
But we have seen the President turn on those who he feels are disloyal (mostly those who question him in public). I am thinking particularly of O’Neill and Powell. But, here’s what I am wondering about now. If the President dumps people who are disloyal, how will he react to the public now disapproving of his conduct of the war and of other public policies? I guess maybe he will be even more helpful to his wealthy supporters, at the expense of the general public. Minimum wage? Maybe not. Tax reform headed the other direction (a different definition of reform)? Better find a two thirds majority.
Just a predication, that the last two years of the Bush White House will resemble a wagon train with the wagons circled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
