Your own hype ...

Last week I noticed a post over at TWM. Mr/Dr Hermann noted how a Florida man had threatened to kill Barack Obama, and was taken into custody. He also noted that the man had also threatened to kill the President, but the newspaper story had put that fact down in the fourth sentence. Mr/Dr Hermann speculated that a threat against the President wasn’t important enough to lead the story, or possibly, not important enough a reason to arrest the man.

Except that Barack Obama was traveling in Florida at the time.

It’s a terrible thing when you believe your own hype.

Fuel economy

Again I have been ignoring my blog in favor of kibitzing on others people’s blogs. Also, I have not had an idea that seemed real … well, “post-worthy” (with apologies to Seinfeld). But there have been a few things rattling around the back of my brain.

First, the question of how fast people should be allowed to drive keeps nagging at me. I have settled for myself that about 45 miles per hour is an optimum speed for my car. I had purchased a little plug in on-board computer that calculates fuel economy. I believe if does that by measuring the speed of the car against the rpms, although I have read it is something to do with the speed of aid moving through the engine. So all that is a little suspect, but I will say my MPG as measured by how many miles I go versus how much gas I put in my car when I fill up has shown improvement (up to an average 36 MPG overall in my last thankful). But if I try to use my car as an example, people may say that their eight cylinder is different than my four. Plus the EPA seems to support the idea that 55 MPH is the optimum of efficiency with graphs like this.


But I have been thinking about why that graph might differ so much from my own experience. Then it occurred to me that the Feds do their mileage testing in a lab. They put the car on a dynamometer, a device that has rollers and measures how fast the wheels are turning. I believe it might also provide resistance, but clearly it wouldn’t take into account wind resistance. The Feds may try to take this into account, but given the chart above, it doesn’t look like they succeed totally.

I saw this next chart elsewhere on the web. It looks like a Volkswagen made an effort to measure the fuel efficiency of the cars (Volkswagen TDI’s) of several of their members. It must have been a long process, measure fuel efficiency at several MPH points, say 25, 35, 45, 55, 65 and 75 (or something like that). I myself am struck by how, even though the cars (all the same model) get different levels of mileage, how the curves are shaped exactly alike. The mileage is clearly highest at a point between 35 and 40 MPH, and drops from there.


I think that this graph would justify calling for a return to the national 55 MPH speed limit, although it would make an even stronger case for a 50 MPH speed limit. After all, my car seems to max its fuel economy around 40 MPH, except up hills, where anything below abouit 48 MPH makes the car lug or at least strain some in fifth gear. So 50 would be a good catch all for all makes of vehicles.

By the way, the top image above came from fueleconomy.gov, and the bottom from drive55.org, although they clearly got it from someone else.

On another related front, conservative commenters over at the Burgh Report, as well as everywhere else, have called for drilling in the OCS and the ANWR. One rather obnoxiously phrases it as drill through a polar bears head to get to oil (and then they wonder why liberal bloggers call them names). National polls show the same sentiment among regular voters, 67% want drilling now in at least the OCS. Conservatives claim their motives are patriotic, while I think voters just want to go back to the way it was three months ago, when all you has to worry about was foreclosure, getting laid off or healthcare. Even Obama has picked up on this, now supporting limited drilling.

So we want to drill now, to get this oil out so that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil. For how long, a couple of years? Maybe ten years, if we are lucky. If it takes ten years to get to the oil, the longest we could be looking at the oil lasting is maybe twenty years from now. Does anyone thing we will be off oil by then? Plug in hybrids are coming, but Toyota can’t keep up with demand for it’s hybrids now. Unless no new cars are sold that aren’t plug in hybrids, then we will have heavier users of oil with us for some time to come.
What I am leading up to is that there may come a time when we really need that OCS oil, not like now where we want the oil to return to an easier life style. Possibly even in a couple of years, four dollar a gallon gas may seem like the good times.

Now, going partially electric in cars is going to put a strain on the electric grid, with all those cars recharging over night. Any additional contribution made from wind farms will need to go to augmenting the electric grid before it goes to replacing coal burning power plants. And plug in hybrids will still need some gas sometimes, for trips between cities. By which I mean that we are not going to get off oil dependence in four years, or even eight. We may be looking at slowly reducing our use of oil over the next fifty years. So we may need that OCS oil in forty years, when everyone else runs out, and we can turn a good buck selling (and using) it. So we should resist using it now. Our children will thank us.

Ruth Ann weighs in ...

I hadn't noticed Ruth Ann Dailey's column yesterday, but the Two Political Junkies did, and compared it to Bob Herbert’s column in the NYTimes the other day. There are interesting differences between the two, and interesting connections to other people. For example, Herbert mentioned the attempt of the Republicans to define Obama as “the other”, someone not of this country, “not sufficiently patriotic” or “one of us”. Well, David Brooks spent an entire column today about how Obama consciously stands apart from his enterprises, teaching law, organizing in the community, going to a church, being a state legislator or US Senator. Americans, Brooks says, like to be able to define their candidates and they can’t do that with Obama. That’s why Obama is not ahead in the polls. Brooks says nothing about Americans defining their candidates by race, because he doesn’t have to.

Ruth Ann Dailey pushes back in a different way. She trots out her familiar point, that the Democrats were the party of racism before the 1960’s. And she’s right, the Democrats were the party of racism, probably most explicitly in the south, but I suspect also in the north when needed. In fact, the Republicans provided the votes to get the civil rights legislation passed in the 1960’s. But since the “Southern strategy” of the 1970’s (darn that Richard Nixon, he was also responsible for the 55 mph speed limit), the positions have flipped.

But Ruth Ann does an interesting thing in her column. She accuses the Democrats of accusing the Republicans of racism ever so subtlety, but she never describes the McCain ad that set off the whole issue, at least not its racial angle. Which was my earlier point, that the attack was subtle enough that, for example, Bram Reichbaum didn’t think it had a racist component. It was just enough to set off certain voters with a predisposition to look for such things. Since the ad went out with John McCain’s approval, it needed that cover. So Ruth Ann Dailey self righteously attacks the Democrats as hypocrites, while McCain pulls even in the polls. David Brooks self righteously describes Obama’s failure to pull ahead as Obama’s own fault for being so aloof and distant, providing those independents and Democrats of a racist inclination with cover for their rejection of Obama. Meanwhile McCain jettisons everything he believed in for one last chance at the presidency, becoming the new pro-business candidate, the one who will block new regulations and allow Americans a few more years living a fantasy lifestyle. “Apres moi le deluge”

McCains ad

In my previous post, I suggested the McCain ad with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was subtle, and probably I really should not have. When you think about how the ad was made, the people making the ad asking themselves, "if we want to describe Barack Obama as a celebrity, whose image should we use?". Are there bigger celebrities than Spears and Hilton? Yes, Pitt and Jolie, Tom Cruise, Oprah, Tom Hanks all leap instantly to mind. What Hilton and Spears share, besides some celebrity, is a reputation for loose morals.

Now for decades African American men (and now teenage girls) have also had a reputation for loose morals. This is true particularly in southern states, but thanks to the magic of television, African-Americans have played the villain in numberless cop shows. We would naturally assume that a Britney or Paris would want to experiment with a black man, an Obama's natural impulse would be to indulge himself. That is a lot to read into one ad, but I think it is justified. Obama himself is the product of a failed interracial marriage, raising that specter with his mere presence.

Obama should push back soon against these ads, although I'm not sure how. He needs to include us (all Americans, but particularly white America) and tell us we are better than these ads. Racial overtones, even if meant humorously, are never acceptable.

Of resumes and senior moments...

David Brooks, conservative NYTimes columnist, has stopped praising Barack Obama’s intellect, speaking abilities and policy proposals, and has started showing his true colors. In complaining about Obama’s lack of experience, he suggested you would have to go back maybe two hundred years before finding a presidential candidate with less experience. Like most people, I don’t know much about the experience of Presidents or candidates before 1950, with one significant exception. In fact, Obama might have himself mentioned that exception in the past, although in any event I know about it from having read a book about the exception. As I considered that exception, I also remembered reading some of the late night talk show host monologues, and the following hypothetical sequence came out of those musings:

Obama, answering charges related to his lack of experience, pointed out that Lincoln was only a one term Representative from Illinois. McCain responded that it is the height of arrogance for Obama to compare himself to Lincoln, and anyway McCain had been in the Navy during Lincoln’s term, serving our country. Aides later commented that it was a natural mistake for Senator McCain to make. After all, Lincoln and Ford are the same car company.

Heh.

Well, so I shouldn’t quit my day job, but there are some points worth considering, sort of in there. For example, on the surge Obama is starting to look like the Fonz, who never seemed to be able to even utter the “wrong”, let alone admit a mistake. It would be a relief for Obama to say he was wrong … except for the follow up question. About the only thing Obama could do would be to blame faulty intelligence. Otherwise, he would have to blame his inexperience or that he was standing with the crowd of Democrats in mechanically denouncing everything about the war/occupation. The second choice would not be good for the “change” candidate. Obama had better get used to the question, because he is going to hear it in every interview until his head explodes.

On the McCain side, it is clear that someone McCain trusts read “The Political Brain” by Drew Westen (yes, I am bringing that up again). In McCain’s Paris Hilton/Britney Spears ad, a narrator calls Obama the biggest celebrity in the world as Hilton and Spears images appear before Mr. Obama, and then the voice asks if he is ready to lead. The ad didn’t need the images of Spears or Hilton, it could have shown Oprah Winfrey and Tom Cruise, or Tom Hanks and Celine Dion, or other celebrities. Obama’s response was equally subtle, and frankly restrained, talking about his “funny” name and how he doesn’t look like the Presidents on the dollar or five dollar bill. And that’s when the McCain camp made its next move, saying Obama was tarring McCain as a racist.

There is an elaborate dance being choreographed here. Each side wants to portray the other side as either racist or playing the race card, without appearing to. So the McCain ad, by using the word “celebrity”, justifies its use of the image of young white women with known bad reputations and loose morals. Obama’s response was the sort of subtly he has used before, that his story is unusual and that he knows he is not what people are used to in a Presidential candidate. Of course, part of that is that he is black, but he didn’t say that. And the McCain campaign’s response was to say that the didn’t appreciate the insinuation of racism.

These are subtle attacks, pretty much like the Willie Horton ad was a (sort of) subtle attack on Dukakis. Each side is raising the specter of race, but waits to accuse racism until there is sufficient provocation. David Brooks (again), on “Face the Nation”, said that this is not the campaign McCain wanted to run, the McCain campaign must be delighted with the results. They have successfully introduced the idea of racism in the campaign by claiming they were accused of it, that they are the victims. Obama will have trouble diffusing this. He will have to give another epic speech where he convinces people not to give into their fear. That will be a really tough needle to thread, because a mis-step anywhere and Obama will offend white voters who do not thing that they themselves are racists, they just cross the street when an African American youth approaches.

It will be an interesting fall. I just wish Obama wouldn’t vacation in Hawaii, even if he did spend part of his childhood there. Branson, Mississippi would be a much better choice (even if Michele would never forgive him). Just don’t wear a cowboy hat, Barack.

Screeds (I like that word) ...

Iraqis face an uncertain future. They can either have a continued occupation by American troops, where Iraqi non-combatants get caught in the cross fire between Americans and insurgents of whatever stripe. Or the Americans will leave, and the Iraqis, who have seen their professional class decimated in a wave of kidnappings and killings in 2004, will have to try to run their country without engineers and doctors and lawyers, although they do have a surplus of thugs. The best part is they have no control over what happens, they are subject to the whims of the American people and Congress. We wanted to export our brand of democracy, and that’s exactly what we did.

I bring the Iraqi situation up because I hear people, as the economy worsens, voicing opinions (loudly and rudely) that would not pass the grandchild test. The grandchild test, probably reminiscent of (one of) Kant’s Categorical Imperatives, is whether you could imagine telling your grandchildren they should do this thing. Take drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) and/or in the ANWR. Let’s say the liberals are wrong about it taking ten years to get the oil; that oil could come out of these places within six months. But how long is the oil projected to last? Ten years? Twenty? So our grandkids will face a future without oil. Of course, we will have been preparing for that future all along, with new solar power and wind initiatives, right? Well the best predictor of our future behavior is our past behavior, and the last seven years of the Bush administration (or the previous eight, or the twelve before that) we did nothing. So the drill now people are like the invade Iraq now people were in 2003. No long term plan for the future.

I have gotten myself involved with the national 55 mph speed limit movement in a tiny way, signing up to be a local resource for Drive55.org. The people who argue against the 55 mph speed limit are interesting. They almost all call the idea stupid (using that word in particular). Some also cite statistics or studies, most of which probably come from right wing think tanks, or from the objectors own personal experience. So they say traffic accidents went down after the 55 mph speed limit was ended, or their last car got better mileage at 65 (or 75) than it does at 55 mph. Sometimes they make the personal argument. One fellow at a hypermiling website (hypermiling is the practice of driving in such a way as to maximize fuel economy) first said that instead of a 55 mph speed limit we should remove/retrain the incompetents who don’t maximize their own mileage (so taking away driver’s licenses is preferable to driving 55) and then said that there is a stretch of a California highway where he can nurse his Prius downhill at 70mph and navigate the small uphills only on battery power, where his gas powered motor would turn on if he went 55 mph. Therefore, because he gets better mileage at 70 mph in this one spot in one type of car using obscure driving techniques, no 55 mph speed limit for anyone.

I think the 55 mph speed limit passes the grandchild test. If you are going to drive a gas powered car, don't waste this finite and scarce resource. I think not drilling now in the OCS passes the grandchild test. Let's wait, see how bad it gets, and drill when we really need to live, not just to maintain a wasteful lifestyle. I think solar and wind and bicycling all pass the grandchild test. Do things that don't use resources your grandkids might really need.

Iraq, drilling now, driving 65, 75, 85... You kids stop that, now.

Thank god for Democrats, say the Republicans

When this Bush came into office, the standard complaint made by the Republican administration and the Republican Congress was that the country was in a shambles because of the years of the Clinton administration. Never mind the fact that Clinton had six years of a Republican Congress. The Clinton’s had ruined America and now George W Bush was here to undo the damage. As no progress toward doing that was made during the first few months of the Bush administration, what a relief it must have been to have the terrorist attacks. Now there was someone new to blame for the economy and the lack of progress the Republicans had made. So Bush turned his attention toward Afghanistan and toward hunting Osama bin Laden, with the help of NATO and the good wishes of much of the rest of the world. Bush’s attention soon wandered toward Iraq, and we invaded them. And the years rolled on, as Osama and Afghanistan were forgotten and we started an occupation of Iraq with US government officials tossing packs of money they called “footballs” around and then losing the "footballs". The new problem was Al Qaeda in Iraq, aided by communist sympathizers at home (also known as Democrats and Hollywood). Although the economy grew some from 2000-2006, and average wages grew a bit, that was mostly because the wages at the top end grew dramatically while the middle class and the poor just stagnated. Katrina brought into sharp focus just how inept our government had become. Although the Republicans tried to blame the Democratic state and local government, clearly the federal government was not and still is unable to address the problem. So what a relief is must have been when the Democrats won the Congress back in 2006, for the first time since 1994. Now all the problems that have been festering since 1994 can be laid, once again, at the feet of the Democrats.

That’s just what Jack Kelly did in today’ column, in between taking shots at Al Gore. “The power grid already is strained by the unwillingness of Democrats to construct electric power plants of any kind.” is a sentence buried in the middle of Kelly’s anti-Gore screed. So suddenly the Democrats have stopped any new power plant being built in the last year and a half, because in the six or twelve years prior, no one was interested in building a power plant (twelve including the Clinton years). What were the Republicans doing between 2000 and 2006? What were they doing after Middle Eastern terrorists attacked our country? Not reducing our dependence on foreign oil by opening up the OCS to drilling (like they now “suddenly” want to). Not authorizing new power plants to be built (ditto). No, the Republicans were cutting the rich tax breaks, ignoring the housing bubble and bringing home the earmarks for their districts like there was no tomorrow.

Yeah, the Democrats, including Al Gore, are not perfect. The Democrats are now getting earmarks for themselves, and somewhere I heard they are the largest in history. Of course, I assume the budget is also the largest in history, the sort of thing that happens in a growing economy. Doesn’t excuse the Democrats, just means they aren’t any worse of villains than the Republicans. And I don’t know why Al Gore has four houses, including the monster mansion in Tennessee. It may be that after he left the Vice Presidency, he thought he might still have a public role, and wanted to be able to receive people in his house in a style they would respect. If he had a modest house outfitted with solar panels, I am sure people would dismiss him as an Ed Begley Jr wannabe, some environmentalist who wants us to wear Jimmy Carter sweaters and ride bikes everywhere.

Instead Gore has an enormous house, on which he has installed solar panels so that his carbon footprint is apparently zero (at least in terms of home energy usage, although possibly he sells enough surplus energy back to make up for the private jet, etc). People who try to lead are human and fallible. Some Democrats are still upset with Gore for not fighting for the election harder, some even for Gore “sighing” in the debate. At least, though, Gore is not calling conservation a “Personal” virtue; something Cheney has not, to my knowledge, apologized for or at least corrected.

I glanced around the web just enough to see that the APS was doing no more than presenting the debate not changing its position. There clearly are scientists who don't believe in global warming, but its not clear to me how *many* there are. When conservative columnists say that the global warming issue is in serious doubt, a web search usually reveals that these claims are made by only a few, and dismissed by many others. It may be that the earth is not quite warming as fast as predicted, just like it may be that the surge in Iraq has in fact been "militarily" successful. But the slowing in the rate of global warming may just show that efforts to reduce carbon output here and there were successful (and not taken into account in the original predictions), just like the military success of the surge may enable the actual troop with drawl from Iraq.

District 7 Town Hall

So I did go to the Town Hall meeting for District 7 last night and I feel I should say something. First of all, seven of the nine Council person were in attendance (it’s easiest just to say that Dan Deasy and Reverend Burgess were not there). There were some preliminaries in terms of presentations by a planning person and a budget person, slides that I wish were on the City website (or if they are, I wish they were easier to find). Patrick Dowd took a few minutes, and said something that he apparently feels is the most important issue facing the City. He pointed out that the City has had a downward trend in population since 1950. Dr. Dowd later suggested to me that now is a time also of extraordinary opportunity, although I have some trouble seeing the opportunity if your funds are as limited as ours are.

Now, I don’t know why people were leaving Pittsburgh up to about 1980, maybe it was that whole sun belt versus rust belt thing. But by 1980, heavy manufacturing industry and the formerly large number of corporate headquarters were gone or about to go, and the people who remained in Pittsburgh were retirees in larger numbers than in other cities. So I pointed out (when I took a turn to speak) that the recent decline could be because of people dying off, not necessarily leaving.

I would agree, though, Pittsburgh needs to attract people to the City. That aside, the other big question about the evening is how the Council members got along, considering the recent news stories and the City Paper article. There was no obvious sign of friction among the Council members. I don’t remember Jim Motznik speaking, although he may have at the end (“This is my favorite part of the job”, they all said). There were a few looks of boredom and possibly frustration on some Council faces during the event, especially when other Council persons were talking, but that could have been because it was a hot room at the end of what was probably a long day and near the end of the week.

Of cours, this is my blog and I want to talk about me. So among my suggestions (when I took my turn to talk) were to install a large solar array somewhere (I didn’t say it, but my favorite target location is Flagstaff Hill), a big, flashy project that might get some attention for the city (could be used to power City equipment like traffic lights). I also suggested the City rehab abandoned houses for people returning to the City (say, from exurbs where it is now too expensive to live), putting police on bicycles, and putting something on the City website to help newcomers to the City, like a forum where they could ask questions and see answers to previous questions. The police thing was a repeated theme for the evening, some people complaining there isn’t enough of a police presence, especially after the police station moved, and one memorable speaker describing a series of events in which she felt she and or her children were targeted by the police, possibly called by malicious neighbors. People were asking for foot patrols, I made the bicycle suggestion as a way of giving beat cops more range and a bit more speed potential, while also saving gas. I don't know for sure, but apparently I was mumbling early, and I think my face got quite red. At least I didn't fumble for words like I have in the past when I spoke in front of a crowd.

Many of the evening’s comments had to do with parking, tree removal, police presence and speeders and other traffic issues. Few were related to the larger issues facing the City, but that’s the nature of the relationship between government and its citizens. Most of us ask for help from the City, County, State or Federal government, especially if we approach an elected official.

The City Paper - "Motion Sickness" (heh)

There was an article in this week’s City Paper on the City Council (Charlie Deitch). Not surprisingly a lot of it had to do with Pat Dowd. He has become well known to Council watchers as some one who is argues the technical merits of issues, any nad perhaps all issues, without really being concerned about who he is arguing with. Away from the Council table he seems to think this is OK:

“There was a time that you knew these five were with the mayor and these four weren't," Dowd says. "You don't have that now, and I think that's pretty important. I don't see the middle as a bad place. I see it as a way of being reasonable and considered, deliberate and open-minded, and not ideological and locked into a way of thinking.

"When is the last time that you were able to sit in a city-council meeting and honestly not know which way the votes were going to go? I think it's great for the process."

But Pat Dowd has accused fellow Council persons of “dirty politics” and “dishonesty”. He is raising his voice (so I am told), showing his passion for his position. But that could be viewed as contempt for someone else’s position, maybe everyone else's position. He appears to be burning bridges, getting a reputation not as an independent thinker but as a contrarian.

Look, I am the last person to disagree with the idea that each issue should be viewed on its merits. I think that each issue should have at least some discussion, possibly an argument, as long as all sides agree to be civil and logical. If your position is based on fact, if you can advocate the logic of your position thoughtfully and persuasively, then you should win supporters. After all, City Council is a place where you have the time and resources to lay out your case (the "Twelve Angry Men" fantasy).

But Council persons are political animals. Their voters may believe that their street should be paved or their local police station should be re-opened or what have you. If you always vote against the Council representative from the West End (for example) when he proposes these things, after a while (s)he is going to take it personally, and start voting against you reflexively, no matter how logical your position. So you need to cultivate allies, especially on a closely divided Council. Ideological purity is nice and all, but tough to explain to voters. Even tougher when City Council seems bogged down in minutia, when the City plunges further into debt and the pension funds fall further behind.

There is no shame in saying “I disagree with Mr. Shields, Mr. Burgess, Mr. Kraus and Mr. Peduto on this specific point, but I understand and agree with their larger intention, so I will vote with them.”. People may say you sold out, but they will understand why. And most will probably agree with you.

There is a District 7 town hall meeting tonight. I plan to attend to see what Dr Dowd has to say. This means I will miss the CityLive event, “Transportation Solutions for Our Region” tonight on the North Side (Hazlett Theatre). I hope someone asks about the price of diesel fuel and what PAT is doing about getting funding to cover it. And I hope someone suggests lowering fares and increasing routes. People need reasons to get out of their cars and get on the bus. The price of gas has gotten many people there (although it is now showing signs of falling due to demand, the right result but the wrong incentive). But others are only three quarters or halfway there. For the sake of our country and the future of the world, we each need to do what we can (says the guy who drove into work today: hey, at least my last tank-full was at 34 mpg, and I plan to ride in tomorrow. Gotta get home tonight for the Town Hall).

Truths we can't handle ...

Chad Hermann is a well known and apparently greatly admired local blogger, as I’m sure you all know. In yesterday’s post, at his blog Teacher, Wordsmith, Madman. he printed an email to him (the second of an apparent series) about the presidential race, and he also pointed out (perhaps humbly) how he has no dog in that hunt:

“Unlike many other bloggers, I'm not playing partisan hack or shill or biased, blindered cheerleader. I'm sticking to a core set of beliefs and principles that have not changed in the almost four years I've been writing this blog. All I'm doing is calling the truth as I see it.”

And then: “It's just that this time, as Colonel Nathan Jessup once famously noted, some people can't handle it.”

Let’s keep in mind that Mr. Hermann (Dr. Hermann? I don’t know) printed a six part analysis of Barack Obama’s speech on race from Philadelphia, analyzing/criticizing it literally word by word. He has accused Mr. Obama of overly florid prose, of incoherence and of course of lying. He was incensed when Obama would not renounce Jeremiah Wright when those videos hit the media rotation, and then also incensed Obama did renounce the Reverend when Wright came forward on his own power to call Obama a slick politician. Keep in mind when the Wright controversy erupted the first time, the media was using video out in the public, out of Wright’s control. The second time, what Wright said was in his control. The first time, Obama used the issue as a teaching moment, to remind white America that most of black America has not made that much progress. The second time, Obama indicated he does care about loyalty.

This is Mr. Hermann’s non partisan, truth telling nature, to spend the vast majority of his posts on presidential politics bashing Obama, yet not indicate why Obama treated Wright in the way he did (both times). To claim not to be a “partisan hack or shill or biased, blindered cheerleader” (on his blog), while his day job is as a speechwriter for Republican candidates (one of whom, Mark DeSantis, I also supported on my blog).

Colonel Nathan Jessup is an interesting choice to reference for Mr. Hermann. What is the truth that Colonel Jessup thought the naval Judge Advocate General Corps attorneys could not handle? That Colonel Jessup ordered the torture and accidental death of a marine, who may have been sick and in any event was not keeping up. That Colonel Jessup then lied about the “training” procedure, denying having ordered it, content to leave two enlisted men holding the bag (so to speak), so Jessup could advance to an important political position.

Actually, for Jessup the truth, as he saw it, was that real men have to do things, difficult things, so that pussies can sleep easy at night. I think that’s what the European and European-descended settlers told themselves as they rolled over the Native Americans. That’s what colonists and later citizens told themselves as they chained blacks. That’s what the military told itself as it rounded up Japanese Americans in World War II. And that’s what the neocons told themselves as they ordered detention without end and torture at Guantanamo Bay.

We can’t handle those truthes. You are damn right.

The Definition of Irony

Someone at the PG must have a sense of humor, or irony, or something. Basically right next to Jack Kelly’s Sunday column, on how the democrats are to blame for high oil prices, there sits Sally Kalson’s column on how she is growing a “Victory Garden”. So the essay from guy who wants us to be able to drive SUV’s for some time to come is right next to an essay on not having to drive for food because you have the ultimate in local eating.

Poor Jack, he might score some points with liberals if he tightened up his message a bit. He starts his essay by noting the danger in drawing conclusions just because one event comes after another, such as blaming the Democrats for high oil prices. Then he proceeds to go ahead and blame the Democrats for high gas prices, although without citing one specific action that would have triggered the run up in high prices. Instead he notes that when President Bush issued an Executive Order ending his side of the ban on drilling off the west and east coasts, oil prices came down. Actually oil prices were flirting with coming down the week before, but had bounced back after Iran had test fired missiles. But at least Kelly had a quote from conservative economist Lawrence Kudlow. Kelly mentions nothing about falling US demand for oil as people use other methods to commute and cancel trips, but he does say that a Bureau of Land Management decision to open 4.9 million acres of land in Alaska to oil exploration, over the objection of environmentalists, contributed to a further drop in the price of oil.

Kelly does say that the price of oil is high specifically because Democrats won’t allow drilling off the coasts, in the ANWR and because Democrats won’t allow the coal to oil gasification thing. He says nothing about the previous six years when no one said anything about drilling. He then claims that it won’t take ten years for new drilling to bring oil (possibly true in some cases, but what about refining capacity), and finishes by stating global warming isn’t coming, and even if it is, it won’t hurt for fifty years; wheras while the democrats carbon control plan, cap and trade, will immediately cripple the economy (to the tune of $144 billion). He mentions a Heritage Foundation Study for the assertion about cap and trade, but no source for his assertions about global warming, Maybe he feels it is settled science that global warming is false from his previous columns on the subject.

The thing is, when Bush calls for a end to drilling bans, it probably does exert a downward pressure on oil prices (which we have yet to see at the pump). Unfortunately, it seems like 1985 all over again. If the price falls, there will be no incentive to keep riding your bike or taking the bus to work. Whether it’s this time, the next or a time after that, there will be point where the price of oil will go up and not come back down. Where Chinese and Indian demand will be big enough to keep the price of oil up. At that point, we may have drilled all the reserves we had off the coasts and in Alaska, and we or our kids will demand the government do something, and the government will say they already did that something in 2008. It’s probably time to deal head on with the twin issues of global warming and high oil prices once and for all. Jack Kelly’s position is exactly the short-sighted wrong position.

How many crises?

There is a great line from Woody Allen’s essay “My Speech to the Graduates”.

“More than at any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”

Let’s see if we can accurately count the different crises facing the US.

There is a housing/banking crisis, caused because during the housing bubble, banks made loans to people with out checking to see whether the income they said they had was in fact the income they had. Then those loans were sold upstream to funds for investors, and again the fund managers took the word of he banks that they had done due diligence.

There is a new energy crisis; the price of gas spiked for literally no apparent reason. OK, some people blame Asia for increasing demand, some people blame speculation, some people say it is our own fault (mostly cranky environmentalists).

There is a related crisis, the risk of recession. That is related to the banking crisis in that too many banks or investment firms going under doesn’t help the economy. But maybe more important, the price of gas affects all transported goods, which these days is everything. So there is a risk of the same kind of inflation we saw in the ‘70’s and early ‘80’s. That inflation (named stagflation at the time because it was linked to higher unemployment) was bad enough to induce Congress to agree to higher fuel economy numbers for cars, and to the infamous 55 mile an hour speed limit. The inflation was probably broken when the OPEC cartel was unable to keep its members from breaking their agreements to sell at a certain price. Their price agreement feel apart and the price of oil/gas dropped like a stone. Ironically it probably had something to do with the 55 speed limit and people’s personal efforts at conservation that helped break the cartel.

Finally, there is the global warming crisis. This has to do, apparently, with the fossil fuels we burn to light and heat our homes, to drive to and from work and in general to make our lifestyle what it is. This is the crisis Al Gore was looking at when he called for us to switch our electricity production to 100% renewable in ten years.

Now some of these crises are linked, feed on each other. Some of the ways we address the different crises are in fact the same, others solutions for one crisis make another worse.

We have the sorts of problems where the solutions could propel us into science fiction land; a place where we drive electric cars, our energy comes from wind and solar power, where our farming is a low tech sustainable organic sort, where we travel by rail, not plane (except perhaps zeplins), but mostly we use the internet to interact, so that we keep the critical mass of intellectual thought going to contnuously look for new solutions.

Or we live in a giant mix of downtown Pittsburgh and downtown Detroit.

The banking crisis will have a considerable negative effect on solutions for global warming and some of the solutions for high gas prices. The capital for new solar, nuclear and wind installations just may not be there. We may want the new solar/wind/nuclear not even to replace coal fired plants, but to power a new group of vehicle that use electric power and batteries. Of course, hybrids are not going away, and gas stations are already here, but unless people are buying golf carts for city driving, they may have full size electric cars that they may want to drive more than two hundred miles. If they have to wait three hours just to go another two hundred miles ....

But the idea of replacing our power plants with wind, solar and nuclear is attractive. Whether as a supplement to power new vehicles or to reduce green house gas producing coal and natural gas plants, it is a step in the right direction and may produce a desirable sort of momentum. Another positive step is that people are looking at their transportation options. They are taking the bus, commutuing with a bicycle, combining their shopping trips and have managed to reduce US demand for oil for the first time in a long time. I assume these things are being done in other countries too. This, in turn, appears to be exerting a downward pressure on the price of oil. Of course, the last time the price of gas feel, we soon went back to our old ways of wasting gas. Now we are really good at it. to help us waste more gas, there are the proposals that we drill off the coastal US, and in the ANWR. That would likely also exert a downward pressure on gas, and so we might be able to drive like we always have, for about five, maybe ten years. Burning even more gas, emitting more green house gases.

I don’t know what is going to happen. I’m about halfway through the Omnivore’s Dilema, but I can already see that a lot of what we are doing in terms of obtaining food at the lowest price possible depends on using oil, which will run out eventually, and on allowing considerable pollution and soil erosion (kept in check with ever more chemicals). In other words, unsustainable methods. We could follow Al Gore’s call to action, do things like encouraging local farms that use sustainable methods and switch to bikes and electric cars.

Then I remember the film Idiocracy, by Mike Judge. It chronicles the triumph of the lowest common denominator. Owen Wilson ends up as the smartest man on earth (!). You should check it aht.

Oil prices - We won't get fooled again?

It was probably too soon to declare that oil would keep going up and up, and never come down again back at the end of June. It’s probably too soon to declare that oil is coming down again. Still there are hints that that is exactly what is happening. The NYTImes suggests that oil traders think a recession will cause US demand to fall. Of course, possibly conservation (that dirty word that Cheney spits out) might be having an effect. That may be too radical a notion for oil traders (or newspapers reporting on them) to contemplate, but truth to tell, our record from the mid eighties doesn’t give anyone much reason to think we could maintain a serious effort at conservation. Either way, it looks like the price per barrel is dropping a bit. Of course, so far the price at the pump isn’t budging downward, in fact, in some places it is still edging upward.

What will be interesting to see is if demand for gas plateaus or even starts rising again. I suspect demand for gas in China and India have at least slowed. I know China subsidizes gas, but its payments to it domestic energy companies weren’t keeping pace with the rapidly rising price of oil, so they were threatening to go out of business. China adjusted the price of gas upward by some 20% (as I remember), still below the international price but a respectable jump. Since the Chinese are newish to the driving game, they may park their new cars, or delay buying one, and get back on their scooters, electric bicycles or plain old pedal bikes. Ditto for the Indians.

But while global demand for oil may slow, I don’t see it stopping, at least not in the near term. We could be leaders in this regard, but for every Barack Obama, there is a Newt Gingrich that thinks Americans don’t want to and shouldn’t have to give up their comforts and conveniences (after all, its just the planet at stake). Unless population growth stops rising and becomes only replacements for existing people, the demand for energy is going to continue to rise. But we have gotten the really cheap oil out of the ground. Now it is going to get more and more expensive to even get the same amount of oil out of the ground, and of course eventually there will be less and less of it. At this point, investments in the solar and wind industries look like a good bet.

However, I believe Congress is still paying money to oil companies for … nothing, just giving them taxpayer money. They were doing the same for solar and wind, but the Republicans decided that was a good place to tighten the belt (read: solar and wind aren’t contributing to campaigns yet).

If we do start to use an alternative fuel, how is that going to work? Are there enough french fries to fuel a whole America of veggie mobiles? Would you be able to stop in at your local gas station and plug in your electric car or even plug in hybrid and, in the same time it takes us now to fill our tanks (about three minutes), could you fill your battery? How will your corner gas station feel about competing with an extension cord and your own outlet? And is our electric grid ready to replace all those fuel tankers? Where would all that electricity come from?

These are non-trivial questions, and since electricity is a regulated industry, and there are safety standards for cars, government will have to be involved in the answers. I don’t know what they will be. I would hope that a big push for solar and wind generated electricity would be part of them, but who knows.

@#%* Planet green

I don’t know if I have mentioned the Planet Green Channel before. Discovery something or other changed into Planet Green a few weeks ago. I noticed it because I wondered if there was going to be a new season of “Living With Ed” or at least repeats (there are repeats on “PG”).

The Planet Green channel specializes, obviously, in environmentally themed programming. They have managed, amazingly, to combine environmentalism with good old fashioned American competitiveness. Every show has a greener than though element to it, and to someone not familiar with the environmental movement (or even some who is), it would seem that it must be very expensive to save the earth. The programs feature things like renovations with triple paned windows and blue jeans insulation (just try to find it, then marvel at the cost).

I thought part of the point of the environmental movement was to find cheaper, more sensible alternatives to our ostentatious lifestyle. Instead, Planet green is creating a whole new way to be ostentatious, and of course you get to flout it. Here are some of my suggestions for environmental improvements, and then what I think their suggestions would be:

For windows, that plastic film you buy in the hardware stores is 70% as effective as changing single pane windows to double pane windows. That may not sound good until you consider the price differential; five bucks versus one hundred fifty or more per window. Oh, and the five bucks covers three average windows. PG (for Planet Green) wants you to consider triple pane windows for the ultimate in insulation.

For insulation, insulating you attic with a foot or more of fiberglass in rolls or batts is one of the cheapest ways to save energy around. The recycled newspaper insulation is another way to go, about the same price, but to do it yourself you are supposed to blow it in (with a rented machine), I don’t what you are supposed to do about a vapor barrier, if you already have some fiberglass you are not supposed to mix them, yada yada. You can insulate your walls, but that absolutely has to be blown in, and by professionals. So you should max out your attic insulation first. PG would have you use the blue jean insulation, or some esoteric sprayed on insulation made from natural materials. And go ahead and rip down the plaster from your walls, put in the spray, and then re-cover with recycled timbers from a farmhouse in Vermont.

For transportation, I say first a used bicycle from Craigslist. People sell bikes on there across the whole price range, but you don’t have to buy a Cannondale racing bike for $1000 just because some says it is worth. And for a car, a used stick shift small rice burner, possibly from Craigslist, is the ideal choice. If you want new, a Yaris, Fit, Accent, Versa or Aveo are good choices, or a hybrid, especially the Civic or Escape (the Prius has picked up a price premium). The Escape still has a three thousand dollar tax credit. PG would have you look at folding or electric bikes. There are some cheaper folding ($125-$175) and electric bikes ($350), but PG would have you buy the top of the line versions in both (a thousand and up), which do perform better and weigh less, but are they worth it? And for cars PG would advocate hydrogen if it was available, but esoteric electric cars and of course Prius hybrids are about the best they can do.

Listening to AnnaBeth Gurwitch on Wa$ted talk about how she buys organic cotton clothes because even though they cost more they are better for the earth, I was struck by the fact that middle class and lower income people, squeezed by higher prices already, would change the channel to MTV or Cinemax, rather than be lectured to and ordered to spend even more on a mother earth that is already threatening to force them drive stupid little golf carts instead of their dream SUV. You can do well by doing good. But that won’t work if the environmentalists keep rubbing your nose in the fact that they do better and more for the earth than you do (apparently because they can spend more). If its so cheap to put plastic on your windows and recover the cost next week, you should do it. If adding insulation and putting the plastic on your windows saves you money over the next five years, then maybe you can afford to put in new windows. Or get more education, get a better job, and sell that crappy house.

Dowd N'@

You may have noticed a Tribune Review story about Pat Dowd that included a quote from me. The quote they didn’t print from me is that I am very confused by Dr Dowd recently. I’m confused because although I understand (but don’t necessarily agree with) each of his individual positions, I am having trouble conceptualizing them as a coherent whole.

Our story so far ... Dr Dowd was not happy with the way zoning/permitting process was “streamlined” so that the Lamar LED sign downtown would receive no (pesky) public hearing, in fact was not even run by the boards of the Zoning Board or Parking Authority. Dr Dowd asked for an opinion from the Law Department and six weeks later they say it isn’t kosher and essentially “so what”. So Dr Dowd decides someone needs to file an appeal with the Zoning Board, but can’t find a private citizen who lives downtown (in, say, the Pennsylvanian) who will do it, so he files the appeal himself, as a private citizen, who works downtown on Grant street. Now, in that position its possible, maybe probable, that the Zoning Board would have said he lacked standing. Dr Dowd was prepared to go, from there, to the Court of Common Pleas to argue his case. I halfway suspect he wanted to do exactly that.

But four other Councilmen also stepped forward and jointly filed an appeal with the ZBA, as COuncilmen on City business. And the five won and Lamar has to refile, and presumably will go through the hearing process. And since then Dr Dowd and Jim Motznik separately but unfortunately at the same time asked for a legal opinion on the City paying the four Councilmen’s legal bill, and Dr Dowd has argued that it is improper for the City to pay the bill. And (to the Trib) I tried to say that Dr Dowd had “dug” himself a small hole (instead as I was thinking ahead I apparently said “cut” himself a small hole). It’s a small hole because if Dr Dowd drops the confrontational attitude, it could all be forgotten in six weeks (the time it takes to render an opinion … heh).

It seems to me that Pat Dowd is treating Council like it is the US Senate. It is easy to imagine Ted Kennedy and Orin Hatch arguing and fighting tooth and nail over policy and procedure, saying positively nasty things about each other. But the next week they could “reach across the aisle” and co-sponsor an education or anti-poverty bill, standing next to each other and beaming, going on about “bi-partisanship” and so on.

But a City Council is not the floor of the US Senate. Here your constituents are closer, and they have the capacity (if not the desire) to hear every word you say. Here your fellow Council persons are more ordinary citizens themselves, people who ran for Council because they had reached the limit of what they could do as party ward chairpersons, and so went the next logical step to be able to get things done. They are much more interested in the ends than the means. You can convince ordinary Council persons that they need to worry about transparency and the division of power in city government, but it is not something they come by naturally.

It seems like Dr Dowd is going a more formal route, but in so doing he seems to be turning Council into more of a courtroom setting, obeying more complicated rules. But that is a dangerous path. All the parties in a courtroom agree to the rules, even while they try to use them to their advantage. Courtrooms are highly stylized places where people agree with the outcomes (at least to some degree) because they do have this formal process that everyone agrees to, including the ability to appeal to ever higher authorities if you can demonstrate the process was violated.

But Council is not a courtroom, and the other Council persons are going to get tired of Dr Dowd trying to inject this formal process notion into the proceedings. Meanwhile, the three new Council persons and Doug Shields and Bill Peduto had (in January) a promising political block, at least enough people to get things passed. Now the “Lamar Four” will need to find a different fifth member. Maybe Darlene Harris, who has demonstrated that at least she appears to care about her constituents (including the four legged variety). But whatever hopes Dr Dowd had for legislation, whether greater transparency, addressing Pittsburgh's debt or creatng more bikes lanes, are endangered by the grudges he is creating with his postions and style of articualting them. And we are not going to have the technocrat Council that some people were hoping for (and an even more interesting what-if, if DeSantis had been elected and had worked with the Technocrat Council – maybe we would all have solar powered Segways by now).

Your mileage may vary...

I just read a NYTimes piece called “American Energy Policy, Asleep at the Spigot”. It pointed out that when gas prices went up the first time, in the late seventies and early eighties, we reacted with a 55 mph speed limit, with higher fuel standards for cars and by then actually buying the smaller cars. But when the gas prices went down, in the mid-eighties, the speed limit went back up, no updates for the CAFÉ standards were considered, and we started buying bigger and bigger cars. We simply frittered away the nineties and most of this decade. President Bush talked about a giant solar array in the Desert in the South East, back years ago, but did nothing about it. In fact, President Bush could have made energy independence a feature of his homeland security policy back in 2001, he could have advocated solar power, mass transit and new fuel standards for American cars. Just as only Nixon could go to China, only a Texas Bush could have endorsed conservation and alternative energy. But Dick Cheney once said "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy," and the Bush policy has followed suit. Even now, the major recommendation of the Bush administration is to open up more areas for drilling.

But while the federal government may be incapable of acting, we can each individually do things, and pressure our local government to act. We can increase our use of bikes in commuting, or use public transportation. By the way, I should mention the electric bike went back. The second rechargeable battery was working no better than the first. But I have taken up using an old hybrid bicycle to commute to work. Hybrid does not refer to engines in this case, rather it was the name given to bikes which have narrower tires and lighter frames than mountain bikes, but are less fragile than road bikes, having fatter tires and the upright riding position of a mountain bike. I already have a stick shift, two door Korean rice burner mini car, but I am going to try to stop driving it to work so much.

Meanwhile, I wonder what the City and County could be doing to help their citizens. One thought that occurred to me is that the City could take public land and do things with it. The City could buy up or just seize (temporarily) some of the vacant lots and start growing switch grass there. Switch grass has been cited as a possible source of ethanol, like we are using corn and the Brazilians are using sugar cane. The difference with switch grass is that we wouldn’t necessarily use fertilizer on it the way we do corn (we apparently use a lot of petroleum based fertilizer on corn, in fact, apparently we over use it in the Midwest, it runs off and has created a dead zone in the Caribbean). And Steel City Biofuels has taken up residence in the building where Construction Junction is, no doubt just waiting for a knock at the door.

Another thing the City could do would be to put solar panels on Flagstaff hill in Schenley Park. The hill seems about angled right to get a lot of sun. The city could sell the power back to whatever utility (or utilities) it uses to power its buildings and our traffic lights. Maybe this could be done in conjunction with CMU engineers, in exchange for some fraction of the electricity.

The County, meanwhile, needs to resolve its issues with the driver’s union. That union seems to feel it can use a strike to its advantage, keeping or even increasing its benefits and perhaps getting a raise too. The County should point out to the driver’s union that transit agencies across the country are seeing increases in riders, but they are also seeing fuel costs increasing even faster. Nationally transit agencies are talking about cutting back on routes. PAT should let the drivers know that if they strike, and afterwards the Authority loses riders, there may be layoffs and dramatic cuts in routes. Which of course is absolutely counter intuitive in this time of higher gas prices. A bus may pollute more than two or three cars, but with twenty riders it is taking twenty cars off the road, and using less gas than probably the first fifteen to eighteen.

The point is there are a number of things we can do locally. It remains to be seen whether we will.

Jack Kelly Sunday (as stolen from 2PJ's)

This is the territory of the Two Political Junkies, but I wanted to comment on Jack Kelly’s column in today’s Sunday Post Gazette. Kelly expresses the opinion that energy independence is quote unquote a pipe dream, and while I think his motivation for saying it is to skewer liberals, I think this is an issue worth mulling over.

Kelly’s basic point, I think, although he does not explicitly use the word, is about scale. He talks about coal gasification, mass transit, plug in hybrids and the nuclear power plants he thinks we would need to power them, solar (although not wind), conservation (55mph)and also drilling off the coasts and in the ANWR. He says that environmentalists could/should be mollified by an offer of 2,000 acres of some new national park where people could actually visit (he seems to skip over the point of a refuge). And Kelly’s conclusion is that all of this would help us reduce our demand for foreign oil in five to ten years from 60 percent of our consumption down to 25 or 30 percent.

By the way, Kelly has a novel suggestion about where to locate nuclear power plants to avoid the NIMBY problem. He suggests military bases. I think the troops have suffered enough, but Kelly's idea is probably doable. You give up a lot of your rights when you put on the uniform.

He’s probably about right about how much we could reduce our oil use too, maybe. There’s reason to be pessimistic, though. Many thought gas prices would not come down in the late seventies and early eighties and that a period of austerity and deprivation was with us to stay. Then greedy OPEC, getting rich as a collective, fell apart due to that greed, and gas prices plummeted. If demand in the US and the rest of the world falls, and if speculation really is fueling (so to speak) part of current oil prices, prices may fall again. Then the SUV’s will start selling again, and we will start the cycle of consumption again. Eventually we will reach a point where oil will start to run out, and we may have a global depression, complete with mass famine, plague, political upheaval and global war.

But stepping back to Mr. Kelly’s assessment, he glosses over the liberal accusation that new drilling (whether in banned areas or in areas where oil companies apparently hadn’t exercised options they already have) won’t start producing results for five to ten years anyway. I will say, picking up on the speculation theme I mentioned above, since oil is priced on a futures market, permission to drill in the ANWR and off the coasts might have an immediate effect on the price of oil, since traders/speculators would see the increased supply coming.

There is one thing to say about Mr. Kelly’s estimate. I do think it is accurate, what he estimates in a five to ten year period. I think that he should be wrong about eventual energy independence, though. If we started working today on all the things he said, new drilling and new nuclear power plants (which probably also take five to ten years) and also increased use of mass transit, conservation, plug in hybrids, solar yada yada, we would probably reach that 25 percent foreign oil figure in the five to ten he says we would. But there’s no reason we couldn’t go further, and reach a zero foreign oil percent figure ten years after that, if we continued on that pace.

No reason except that we won’t. By then there will be a new President, and even if it is a Democrat, (s)he will have run on a popular “Let’s make America fun again” ticket (or some variation). And that’s assuming we even get that far. Mr. Kelly doesn’t even catch some of the problems facing our national lack of will. Mass transit use is up, but the increased costs to mass transit due to fuel are rising even faster. Of course in Pittsburgh we have a separate problem (driver’s union) and Dan Onorato is no Reagan. The paradox of mass transit is that it gets more riders when gas (diesel) gets more expensive, but that’s when it needs to cut routes because off increased costs. Unless we adopt European style taxes to help fund mass transit (for those who can’t afford a car), we will not make it cheap enough and also it will not be solvent enough to really help us out. Public transportation in the US is hardly private, but it is still not public enough (ie European level of funding).

There is also the effect fuel costs have on everything else that I haven’t mentioned. The majority of our food and basically all of everything else is transported by truck, ship and train (even some by airplane), and so the price of everything is going to increase. We may finally get those raises we never got during the Bush Presidency, when there was massive increases in productivity. Or not, corporations may not want to deprive stockholders of any more than they have to. But look for people to start talking about Victory Gardens again.

If gas prices do not fall, if they in fact continue an upward trend, I think Mr. Kelly’s projections might be accurate. Especially if gas prices continue their previous dramatic ascent (I think they may have plateau’d in the last week or two, though). If gas prices fall, as they did in the mid eighties , we are probably sunk, due to repeat the cycle. The only good news being the “spinner” hub market would not suffer. Though they are probably made in China.

Gas prices some more

There is a still something of a national discussion about who’s to blame for higher oil prices and what to do about them. As far as blame, the discussion keeps shifting between the Chinese and Indians, the oil companies, the oil producing countries and any speculators you might find in the oil futures market. I can see why looking for a culprit would be attractive, because once found we could tell them to stop, and they could give us back George Bush’s America, where the explosive growth of the income of the rich means that we are all doing well (on average). Maybe we will find that speculators drove the price away from the actual cost of getting oil out of the ground and turning it into gas (sometimes estimated now at $75 a barrel, which makes you wonder why we had cars three or thirty years ago). If so, maybe we should give them a medal for forcing us to think about cutting back or buying smaller cars. Or maybe we should acknowledge a truth, that China is supposed to have as many cars as we do in maybe just a couple of years, before passing us, and the market is just adjusting to that fact.

But I want to talk about Dick Cheney’s notion of personal virtue, the other side of the equation, what to do about gas prices. I can’t remember where I read it, but I saw an interesting article about how we really need to concentrate not on the Ed Begley (Jr) wannabes, but rather on the clueless so and so’s who drive alone in their Lincoln Navigators and Ford F350’s at 80 on the highway. If one of them slows down to 65, it will save more gas in percentage and real terms than if I squeeze another two mpg’s out of my Hyundai Accent by coasting instead of accelerating up to a traffic light. If a family switches form a Dodge Durango to a minivan, they will make more of a contribution to reduced demand than if a Birkenstock-wearer switches from a Camry to a Corolla.

Actually, I am guessing that a lot of these Navigator drivers are males, particularly the ones who drive at eighty on the highway. Not to be discriminatory, I am sure there are women who do this too, although why do I thing that they (a) are listening to country music while they are driving eighty and (b) do not have a graduate degree? In any event, these same people who will give up their handguns when it is pried form their cold dead hands (a view blessed by the high court) are not likely to become small SUV or minivan people. But I have a solution. I think these drivers (who are often driving alone) would enjoy a large motorcycle. The motorcycle, even a big one, would at least triple their mileage, and they are quite fun. You don’t have feel like you are in a giant cocoon, instead you have the massive engine right there, between your legs. And if they don’t want to wear a helmet, I say don’t force it. Let them have their freedom.

Not that I take the Darwinian view or anything. Suffice to say, either way problems are solved.

Even China ....

Even China is raising gas prices. Actually, they’re not raising prices above the market price. They are only raising prices closer towards the market prices.

Ok, first all, how come no country is a real capitalist country, not even the communists? China had fixed (and thus subsidized) the price of gas back on November 1st, and kept it there (where-ever there is) ever since. But a funny thing happened, their own energy companies threatened to go bankrupt, their stocks plunging. So China’s newly wealthy class took a beating in their accumulated wealth. And last week China decided to adjust the prices of gas and diesel upwards 18 percent, which for gas means its now the equivalent of $3.58 a gallon. Doesn’t sound too bad compared to here, but an 18 percent jump may mean that the Chinese will drive a bit less. At least no more Sunday drives in the park. And that may mean further downward pressure on demand, possibly causing the price to drop.

By the way, the NYTimes noted that if demands does fall in China, it will lend support to the idea that economists here are advancing. If we tax gas more, much, much more, the core price will very likely fall, as we use less. The less we use, the more that remains for our grand kids ( the great grand kids will have to be on their own, the ungrateful snots).

Cover of the Rolling Stone ...

Well, not really. But I did get quoted in the PG’s “Cutting Edge”, which might pass for a form of journalistic notice (in the city of Pittsburgh). Never mind that the column is apparently not linked to anything. Anyway, they noticed my last post, “Gas Prices”, and this is what they said:

“Thank you, Europe

Cognitive Dissonance in Pittsburgh and Beyond (cognitivedissonancepittsburgh.blogspot.com) thinks it's crazy to drill for more oil in the United States because it only would slightly reduce gas prices for a short time just so we could continue to drive SUVs. We could drive prices much lower by reducing demand. How? By living like Europeans, "where they make do with much smaller cars and a lot of trains, buses and bikes. Some say life there is just as good as here, some say maybe even better (with low crime and better schools)."

CDPB also suggests we thank the Europeans for heavily taxing themselves to keep their own gas prices high, which induces them to conserve, which helps keep worldwide prices lower, which saves us money while we drive gaz-guzzlers.”

I only repeat it here to note that they failed to mention that (I think) the US itself should also reduce demand by taxing gas like Europeans. But I am very amused that they did mention what I consider to be a inescapable conclusion: if we can reduce demand by taxing gas, we have to give a nod to the Europeans, who already did reduce demand with their own heavy gas tax. It could be the real reason OPEC collapsed as a cartel in the eighties, thus giving us the low gas prices that allowed us to buy SUV’s and drive them at eighty miles an hour on the highways.

Thank/Fuck you very much, Europe (pardon my French, Frenchies).

Gas prices

After the initial big rise in the price of gas, at the end of last month, there were some comparisons made between life in the US and life in Europe, where they make do with much smaller cars and a lot of trains, buses and bikes. Some say life there is just as good as here, some say maybe even better (with low crime and better schools). Sometimes people would note that taxes on gas are much higher there, about four bucks more or less.

Now the conversation here has settled on the wisdom or viability of offshore drilling, and drilling in national parks and the ANWR. Never mind the fact that we don’t have additional refining capacity for more oil, or apparently even enough ships equipped to set up the rigs. Or that the oil companies will want to sock us with the initial cost of drilling.

So we have two competing theories of how to bring down the cost of oil, increased supply or decreased demand (the decreased demand is the European solution of high taxes on gas). The increase in supply is straightforward, although some people are predicting it wouldn’t work out that way. The thing is, depleting our domestic supply of oil just so we can continue to drive SUV’s eighty miles an hour on the highway and defer taking steps to address our future … I have no words.

Curbing demand would be difficult. The wealthiest people bought houses the farthest from the cities, bought the largest (and thus the ones that consume the most energy) houses and drive the largest and least efficient vehicles. But they lobby their Representative and/or Senator, and regardless of party, money talks.

Plus a tax on gas of European magnitude, even if it was phased in, would hurt poor people. Even if it was offset by an increased EITC and some kind of tax refund to the elderly, even if the poor and elderly knew to adjust their W-4’s or Social Security payments to get that money on a weekly or monthly basis, it would still hurt.

Everyone would be paying more, so many would feel pushed towards public transportation and/or bicycles, electric bikes or walking. The feds would have this revenue from the gas tax, some of which they would be giving to the poor and those on small fixed incomes. They could use another part of that income on increased subsidies to mass transit, and grants to cities for bus and/or bike lanes and bike paths. Mass transit, with more ridership and increased money from the feds, might be able to do without money from the state or the county. The remainder of hte gas tax revenue could be used to fund or subsidize alternative fuels research and production.

Or all the revenue could be thrown into Universal Health Care.

The funny thing is that the Europeans have been sacrificing on our behalf. With their higher gas taxes, they reduced not only their own demand, but their reduction contributed to a lower world wide demand. Before China and India’s economies took off, we were the only people consuming oil with total abandon, our SUV’s barreling down the road at 80 miles per hour.

It should also be pointed out that the last time gas prices were high, in the seventies and early eighties, Americans reacted fairly admirably by cutting back, and buying smaller cars. Congress reacted intelligently, with the 55 mph speed limit (something else I am in favor of) and with CAFE standards for American cars. Then gas prices came down, the 55 mph speed limit was repealed, and people started buying SUV's, and continued to move further and futher out into the suburbs.

Since oil is a finite resource, and since it also seems clear that we will not behave like it is until we are hit over the head with a sign, I am in favor of taking steps to decrease demand by artificially increasing the price. We can take steps to make sure that poor people can still meet their rent and feed their families, but we need everyone else to suffer some. We have seen that the pain we already feel in the current price run up has influenced our behavior some, demand for gas has fallen a percent or so in the first quarter, although I don’t the impact from the latest run up has truly been measured yet. But to separate the people who truly need a pickup truck from those who want to play cowboy and also to cut down on oil company profits, we need to beat up demand with even higher gas prices.

John Yoo, Justice of the SCOTUS?

John Yoo, legal conservative extraordinaire, wrote an interesting editorial in the WSJ. He condemned their recent decision giving habeas corpus rights to the detainees at Guantanamo (the Boumediene decision). His reasoning was that these are prisoners of war taken from the battlefield, and such rights have never been given to POW’s. Further, he points out that several of the detainees (over 30), when released as mistakenly captured or whatever, have gone on to join the fight against the US in Iraq. Thus he says a clearly liberal court engaged in “judicial imperialism of the highest order”.

This is, of course, Mr. Yoo’s cover letter to John McCain. First vacancy on the Supremes, you should put me on if you want the right sorts of decisions on Iraq, Mr. Yoo all but screams. I won't go into the various criticisms I have read or heard about Mr. Yoo's editiorial, except to note the exist. Now, I don’t know if the Senate could bring themselves to confirm Mr. Yoo to the SCOTOUS (besides being an unabashed conservative, he is really young), but it hardly hurts to get oneself back on the national radar.

Mr. Yoo didn’t mention the lengthy dissent in Boumediene. Among the arguments (apparently), Justice Scalia states that the constitution stops at the “water’s edge” (except for you, Hawaii), which Mr. Yoo did obliquely refer to as a factor in the Justice Department’s choosing Guantanamo (no habeas for POW’s held outside the country). What’s ironic about that is that Maureen Dowd, covering George W Bush’s trip to Europe in today’s NYTimes, quotes him as saying:

” “There is some (sic) who say that perhaps freedom is not universal,” he asserted, adding that he rejected as elitist the notion that “maybe it’s only, you know, white-guy Methodists who are capable of self-government.””

I really enjoy the double standard the administration states with a straight (perhaps smiling) face. Freedom is universal, but only apparently the freedom to have a “unitary” chief executive. The rights of the United States are only for US citizens, you furiners can create your own rights for your own people. I assume Bush will next embrace Robert Mugabe as “my kind of leader”.

The Empire Strikes Back (Actually just the conservatives ...)

The latest chapter in the electric bike saga, I was going to call the company last night, but I had an errand to run right when I got home, so I didn’t get to the phone until 7:00pm. No problem, their manual say they are open nine to five pacific and I could swear that’s what their recording said, when I called before.

Uh-uh, their recording said their offices were now closed, their hours are nine to four. Mind you, this is a company that also shuts its customer service down at noon (pacific), for training and lunch. Impressive.

So I wrote yesterday about how I thought newspapers were trying to get us to accept not just European policies, they were trying to force a European lifestyle down our throats. But our government(s) also struck blows yesterday, blows for … well against progress. Actually, the state legislature passed a smoking ban, so I can’t complain about that.

But in the city, our Mayor veto’d Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform bill, and the council was unable to over-ride the veto. Ravenstahl’s reasons, as enumerated in an incomprehensible statement and several confusing interviews, include the lack of statewide limits on contributions, that city wide offices are treated the same as council district offices, a statement that union PACs are somehow disadvantaged by being treated the same as other PACs, and the infamous millionaire argument. Of those, only the city wide versus council argument might have some merit (there’s some sense to the statewide argument, but its like saying gun sales should not be limited, because gun collectors might be affected, as opposed to the criminals the law is aimed at). Saying that no reform should be allowed because it doesn’t restrict millionaires and doesn’t give unions special status is saying nothing should be done until it is in perfect form (not to mention that both those actions, limiting a person’s personal spending on his/her campaign and granting one group status over others for no reason would invite courts to strike the law down). There’s more to say about campaign reform, but the Burgh Report is tossing around a lot of ideas, I'll leave it here for now here.

On the other end of things government, the Senate took giant steps backward in the middle of our energy crisis. Senate Republicans did not allow a bill containing credits for the solar and wind power industries for research and development to come to a floor vote, effectively killing it for the time being. They also blocked a tax on the Oil industries, on “windfall” profits, saying it would just be passed on to the consumer. Now, six months ago, when gas was $3 or a year ago when it was $2.50, I would have said ok, we don’t absolutely need such a tax. But now, at $4 a gallon and rising, we could use the extra incentive to cut back. The Democrats were talking about using the money to help the poor with their energy bills. We know some oil companies are vertically integrated, owning the wells, refineries and franchising the stations (and setting their price). So in fact their actual price per barrel is much less than other refineries and stations. But for them to use that price would be to throw the domestic gas market into a funny sort chaos, beneficial in the short run but ultimately detrimental. But a tax might extract some of those excess profits, and redirect them back to a segment of the consumer market.

Of course, the democrats had their day too. They blocked a Republican sponsored measure to repeal a twenty five year measure banning new drilling in coastal areas. Besides the fact that we don’t want to encourage demand by lowering prices, shouldn’t hold on to the oil we have, in view of our special status as biggest user per capita?

Really, the Senate is proving that American politics is still pretty reactionary, cmpared to those oddly behaving but still progressive Europeans.

Not so much (electric) ... and also those crazy Europeans

Well, I rode the electric bike last Monday and then again on Friday. Something I did, I assume riding it to work on Monday four miles and then *not* charging it at work (since it is supposed to have a range of 8 miles and I thought I could just ride it back home) has caused the battery to basically fully discharge. Now it seems to have a range of two miles of electric charge, with pedaling. Needless to say I am pissed off. I tried calling the company yesterday, but they wanted the bike and charger present, which would be difficult considering I was calling from work (during lunch). I meant to call them when I got home (they're on the left coast), but got distracted.

Now, I was always taught and learned the hard way a few times that you don't recharge a battery until it mostly or fully discharges. It you always leave a laptop plugged in, after a while the battery will never hold a charge. But apparently Sealed Lead Acid batteries are different, you must charge after each use and letting them get down to 20% charge spells doom for the battery. Which still makes no sense to me.

ButI have this fear that Currie Technologies will say I screwed up the battery. So I am dithering between sending the battery for "warranty work" and just buying a new battery and being done with it. I will probably choose the worst of all worlds, buy the new battery and also send the old battery in for warranty work, so they can yell at me.

Meanwhile I took my “basement bike” to Iron City Bikes to get worked on. To me, a basement bike is one you used to ride, and then it got a rear flat tire, which are pains because of the derailleur, so it sat for a couple of years. My bike is a hybrid or cross bike, one with a frame shaped like a mountain bike frame, but lighter and with tires thinner than a mountain bikes but not as thin as a road bike. It has no motor, though, so I either have to ride that eight tenths of a mile hill up Stanton or carry it up city steps from Morningside.

But the city schools are suppose to let out this week. I may try the city buses again, with the folding bike.

A bunch of articles and blog posts have looked to Europe as a model for alleviating some of our current problems, particularly around oil. I remember reading somewhere in the PG sometime in the last two weeks a piece about how in Austria people often live in apartment complexes near a bus line or a light rail line, and commute that way. The piece mention how people walk around city centres, and how there is almost no street crime.

But I also read yesterday about truckers in Spain, France and Portugal going on strike protesting high gas prices. And of course you wonder about stories about low crime in Europe when there are soccer riots and used to be terrorists.

I do think that some European-style gas taxes here (ie $4 a gallon) would be a good thing. Although tough to deal with on a personal level.

The latest Europhile suggestion was made by Bob Feikima on Sunday (who I know of through a relative). He complains that American drivers try to cheat traffic lights, barreling through yellow and then the first part of red lights. In fact, he said that lights equipped with cameras cause rear end collisions, as drivers at the rear of a column of cars are surprised when someone aheadof them obeyes the law. He was advocates removing all traffic lights and signage from intersections, something apparently done in Europe, Then if you are approaching an intersection and see a driver, you have to”negotiate” by catching his/her attention and bargaining on whether you have to stop or he/she should.

Personally I am not impressed with this idea. As I drive through Stanton Heights and other neighborhoods around the city, there are frequently narrow streets with about three lanes. So if cars are parked on both sides, and a car is approaching me, I have to do this negotiating thing that Feikima suggests. I generally pull over, expecting the other car will proceed for a little way and then do the same. But what happens about ninety percent of the time is that the other driver continues and drives right past me. My only other alternative would be to play chicken with other drivers, not terribly appealing.

This is what is likely to happen if Feikima’s suggestion is adopted. There will be a whole bunch of side impacts as cars try to jockey their way through intersections, believing they can beat the on coming car and force it to slam on its brakes (and most satisfyingly skid into a parked car). But maybe soon we will be forced to abandon our cars for bikes anyway. I am willing to risk an electric bike to electric bike accident.

It's Electric!

Again, long time, no post. I've been busy, we moved my mother in law into a nursing home, I took a trip south (see last post) and general other stuff. I am in the process of buying a new (used) car, more on that later.

I don’t think I mentioned that I bought an electric bike. I did> I have taken it on one test ride into work so far, and it doesn’t look like I will get another ride this week because it is due to rain the rest of the week. I bought the bike here. So I am substituting dirty coal power for human power, somewhat. I can basically live with that, since it is not a whole lot of dirty coal power, but that brings up another issue. I rode the thing into work, using the battery fairly frequently to give me an assist up hills and so on. I then let the battery sit the rest of the day while I worked. What I really wanted the power assist for was the ride up a long hill at the end of the ride home. But when I reinstalled the battery at five, it was indicating a half or less charge. I wasn’t sure how much power was left, so I rode the bike as a regular bike most of the was home (albeit a seventy five pound regular bike). When I tackled the hill, the battery still had juice, but it didn’t seem to be much. The bike and I struggled up the hill.

Now, I am not supposed to let the charge go below 20%, but there is no meter to indicate when you get down to there, so I just have to hope. The battery on the bike is a sealed lead acid type, apparently the heaviest, and indeed it weighs 25 pounds by itself. Meanwhile, I am only supposed to get 200 to 300 charges on it. Maybe by the time I go to replace it there will be something lighter and more durable. Meanwhile, that 200 to 300 charges was the reason I didn’t plug the battery in at work. I may have to start doing that, but then maybe I won’t be riding the bike that much, not if I want to avoid rainy days (rain plus electricity does not sound like a good idea, besides the lack of fenders). We’ll see. Still, even if I only ride 100 to 150 times, that’s a lot of gas to save.

A conversation with my evil Republican side

It’s all the Democrats fault. They messed up everything when they took over Congress in 2006, which is exactly when the price of oil started going up. They put these provisions in the last energy bill, which prohibited the import of Canadian oil made from the oil sands, and prevented western states from developing oil shale. That caused the price of oil to go up. It shot up even higher when Reid and Pelosi issued statements saying they still weren’t to let Canadian oil made from oil sands to come into the US. We need to import that oil and drill in the Arctic and off the coasts of Canada and Texas. Then the price of gas will come down, and we will be able to get back to the things we like to do.

Well, if the Democrats we doing something, why didn’t Bush say anything, why didn’t he veto the energy bill? Also, I doubt the increased drilling in Alaska and off the coasts would bring in that much crude, and anyway, currently refineries are operating at only 80%, apparently the keep the price of gas higher. Also, aren’t we robbing our children’s future if we drill for very drop of oil and use it all up? How long can these new sources of oil last, and even if we could flood the market with crude, wouldn’t that just keep people from developing new sources of energy and fuel, because the gas would be so cheap?

The Democrats probably buried the restrictions deep in the energy bill. As for how long the new sources of oil can last, I’m sure it’ll be twenty or thirty years, long enough for those hippie eggheads at Berkeley to finally get off their butts and develop something useful, besides the electric golf cart Ed Begley Jr tools around in. That’s when our kids will need the jet packs to replace our SUV’s. Once the Arab countries know we are developing hydrogen powered jet packs, they will fall all over themselves to drop the price of crude.

dotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdotdot

I just came back from a three day trip, driving down to Chapel Hill, North Carolina for a birthday party for two cousins and my dad. The drive was grueling, ten hours each way, made longer because I tried to drive 60 the whole way, instead of 65 or 70 (or 80 or 90). I had borrowed my mom’s car (I was kind of pressured to take it) because my mechanic has more or less pronounced my car to be on its last legs. Something about how the pistons get the air to mix with the gas fails once the car warms up. So I need to get a car, and I can do that, but I am in the in between stage right now (and didn’t want to drive a limping car ten hours down).

So I drove 60, partially to save gas for my own benefit, but also to make a statement. I have heard both 55 and 60 as the optimal fuel economy for cars, probably because fuel economy is tested in a couple of different ways (sometimes in a lab, sometimes in real world tests). Around here, when I drive 60 on Route 28, I pass as many cars as pass me. But on the interstates, I passed few cars, and many passed me. I don’t know if other cars were driving 60 (I wouldn’t, since I wouldn’t pass them if we were both driving the same speed), but I suspect I was something of an oddity on the road. That’s what inspired me to write the above fictional exchange.

I think the people advocating drilling much more are being incredibly selfish, willing to throw away their grandchildren’s future so they can be more comfortable in the present. Of course, I suspect they would think I was being selfish. I would advocate taxing gas to double the price. I think that would encourage conservation and the use of bicycles and public transportation. I’m sure people would say I was trying to tax the rich (true) and that I don’t care about poor people and I would be bankrupting governments. Actually, I would advocate not taxing gas sold to transit companies and city governments for the use of cops and fire trucks and the like. I think a tax credit could be given to rural volunteer fire fighters and EMS. And I think the Earned Income Credit could be increased for the working poor (maybe out of the gas tax funds) and state employment agencies could give cash to poor people actively looking for work.

I was thinking about all this as I watched cars in West Virginia drive at maybe 80 or 85. There were SUV’s and Prius’ right behind them; ten, fifteen or more miles over the speed limit. The ironic thing is that because of taxes, the gas is West Virginia is twenty cents more per gallon than in Pennsylvania, even though it seems to me that we drive a bit slower on average around here than they do there. The people who want to drill, who want to vote the Democrats out of Congress, could also chose to just slow down. It doesn’t even matter what kind of car (or SUV or pickup) they have, as long as they slow down, they will save gas. Sure, when these people went to buy or lease, they could have chosen a smaller car. But that is water under the bridge. But the eight dollar a gallon gas (with the new gas tax I favor) would like influence their next car purchase.

4 plus or minus 1

So I was bad about posting last week, partly because we had people coming to visit, my sister in law and family, including a four year old. He was almost everything I expected, but when his 23ish uncle and I had to watch him for about two and a half hours, it went surprisingly smoothly. Not so much when, on his birthday on Monday, someone in the morning unwisely mentioned he would get cake later (I honestly don’t know who). He then decided he wanted cake for breakfast, and was inconsolable for a good (or rather bad) hour. During the visit he flailed considerably, jumped repeatedly on a bean bag chair, repeatedly ran into an air mattress propped up against the wall, but only suffered one boo boo running into the air mattress at its edge and slamming into the wall beside it. For all his running and flailing, he never kicked any of the electronics. And I think the Chinchilla survived intact; she was probably more pissed that we are out of bananas.

We’ve all, by now, probably heard about the four City Council members clever maneuver of walking out of Council when the issue of their own payment for a lawyer in the LED sign affair came up. This was done because the Law Department issued an opinion that the four should not even discuss payment, much less vote on it, since it represented a conflict of interest. Mind you, the Mayor accepts tickets to charity events and then discusses City business with the companies that donated tens of thousands of dollars on his behalf at the event (hell, he brags about how he was working then), but that is not seen as a conflict of interest. The City Law department needs to grow up, they need to start behaving like adults. The issue in question with the four had extraordinary circumstances. The City Solicitor told the Council persons he could not represent them, because he had a conflict of interest. The Council persons did not receive any benefit from taking this action, they were simply trying to compel the City and Lamar to follow the rules.

Now, you can ask whether the four should have joined Dr Dowd’s suit. You can say that if they were going to do that, they should have done so as he did, as private citizens. But you can also say that if they hadn’t joined the suit, that Lamar might have pressured the Zoning Board to ignore Dr Dowd, or simply to rule against him, forcing him to take the matter to Common Pleas (where it ended up anyway).

When I first wrote about Dr Dowd in January of last year, I believe I wrote that politicians always break your heart, because they are human and almost always have to take some action you disagree with. Certainly some commenters are complaining about Dr Dowd’s vote yesterday, including me. But then some commenters have always been against Dr Dowd, because they preferred Len Bodack or they didn’t like Dr Dowd’s performance on the School Board. Dr Dowd, along with Jim Motnik, asked for the opinion from the Law Department. This is the second time I know that Dr Dowd has asked for an opinion for the Law Department, although in fact he may have asked for many tht I never caught. But the first time I knew of was when he asked for an opinion about the LED sign, and that took weeks. In fact, I think it only arrived after Dr Dowd had filed his appeal. If Dr Dowd had waited for the opinion, he probably would have been too late with the appeal.

This city’s elected officials have had a tenuous relationship with ethics. Between the hostile reaction to Bill Peduto’s campaign finance reform legislation and the Mayor’s antics, the one issue the Law Department has reacted swiftly on is whether the four Council persons have a conflict of interest in getting their legal bill paid, on an issue the Law Department should have handled themselves months ago. Evidently Dr Dowd is still prepared to take the Law Department seriously, even though I can’t imagine anyone else does. I myself had characterized George Specter (who I am sure is a perfectly nice guy) as similar to the lawyer Ted on Scrubs, and I am thinking he is sliding back into that role. Dr Dowd needs to decide if he believes the Law Department is still acting in good faith in rendering its opinions, or if it is simply taking direction from the Mayor’s office.