I’m dismayed that the DC Council’s monthly breakfasts tend to be lavish affairs, especially when the Council is dealing with high levels of unemployment, corruption, and whatnot. Yesterday’s breakfast had a rather flashy spread, complete with individual glass bottles of Voss sparkling mineral water. This water isn’t cheap, and it’s very sad to see such wasteful spending, especially when DC Water is promoting reusable bottles filled with DC’s perfectly drinkable tap water.

So I ask: as the monthly breakfast duty rotates amongst Council members, who went to these wasteful lengths? Hey, DC press (I’m looking at you, DeBonis, Sherwood and Suderman): let’s not allow this to simply pass us by.

(As an aside, this kind of over-the-top, lavish catering reminds me of my time on the DC Democratic State Committee, when the committee was planning its trip to the Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado. One of the DCDSC’s national committee liaisons spoke of “wonderful, catered breakfasts with crispy bacon, eggs, all the trimmings,” and the need for an exorbitant budget to pay for all of this opulence – for a group that didn’t really have a purpose for being at the convention, other than to cast a ceremonial nominating vote. Otherwise, the Democratic National Convention is all about networking and trying to land a political appointment – whatever. And these funds were raised through less-than-legal means, in the end – DeBonis’ write-up is a good place to start on said research. Needless to say, I was very happy not to run for reelection to such a corrupt – and, in the end, pointless – organization.)

———

Word is the Lincoln Theatre on U Street is running out of funds, and needs a quick injection of $500,000 (give or take) to continue operation. This historic building is owned and operated by the District, and I’ve seldom seen it actually host events. From what I can tell, this so-called “hybrid community-commercial venue” is mis-managed, in part by its non-communicative board of directors (who apparently haven’t directly asked the Mayor for assistance, or even a meeting to talk), and in part by its insistance on hosting “multi-cultural experiences and programming.”

Here’s the problem with the latter portion: this charter is essentially code for preserving a culture that has long since left the U Street corridor. Yes, it was the “Black Broadway of DC” in its heyday, a magnet for performers like Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzgerald, Louis Armstrong and Cab Calloway. And the majority of programs booked in the Lincoln try to preserve the historic African-American heritage of the U Street corridor, or play to international arts events.

But over the past 15 years, U Street has changed. It is no longer a neighborhood dominated by one culture, but a melting pot of urban renewal. The old guard establishments, like Ben’s Chili Bowl and Bohemian Caverns, has been joined by thriving new ventures, like Marvin, Nellie’s, Busboys and Poets, and numerous other restaurants, bars and shops. International music and theatre is embraced by performance venues like GWU’s Lisner Auditorum, Warner Theatre, the Shakespeare Theatre Company’s two indoor performance space, as well as other venues in the greater DC area. As people are priced out of the U Street housing market, they often take the culture with them to their new neighborhoods.

A quick study of how many nights the Lincoln is booked for events shows it booked an average of 30-36 days per year – less than ten percent of the time. For any performance venue, this is not an admirable record. And the few times the Lincoln hosted events that were a bit outside of their typical bookings – a LGBT film festval and fringe theatre events, to name but two – there were many obstacles that stood in the way of any perception of success. These obstacles included veiled prejudice with regard to the LGBT festival and mainstream music bookings, as well as negative neighborhood perception on the part of fringe theatre. And those who have worked at the Lincoln have few positive things to say about the management and staff at the facility, ranging from cries of indifference to non-timeliness of essential technical staff.

To put it bluntly: the place is mismanaged on many levels, to its detriment. And DC is now in the midst of renovating the old Howard Theatre, likely embarking on the same path to disrepair.

The solution? The DC government should convert the Lincoln into a stand-alone, non-profit entity. It needs to be weaned from the teat of the DC taxpayers and find its own feet. Such a quality venue, with lovely architecture and a size that’s bigger than many clubs and fringe theatres, yet smaller than places like National Theatre, would be best managed by a firm like IMP (which already does occasional bookings for the facility) or a local guild of theatre companies. This facility needs to be booked more than 65 percent of the year to be relevant or solvent, and it needs management that actually is in tune with the people who now frequent the U Street corridor.

I’m not advocating complete abandonment of the mission of preserving the history of U Street. I’m simply encouraging the Lincoln to embrace the changes, as well: to offer all of Heinz’ 57 varieties of wares, not just things that no longer resonate with the locals.

As far is the Howard is concerned: partner with Howard University and a firm like IMP now, get a game plan in place that is forward thinking in terms of the needs of the city and neighborhood, and don’t step on the toes of your U Street neighbor to the west.

———

The DC government also announced that, unless a little over $300,000 can be found in the budget, it will shutter MLK Library on Sundays, thus closing the only DCPL location that operates on said day. While I grew up in a city where the public library was never, ever open on a Sunday, MLK is a vital “third space” for the DC community.

So where can $300,000 be found? Well, Councilman Harry “Tommy” Thomas, Jr., wrongly spent approximately $300,000 of city funds on his own, non-constituent expenses. He has promised to pay them back, so why not have him pay them directly to DCPL to keep MLK open? Seems like common sense, and makes lemonade out of lemons.

(And naturally, since this makes sense, the DC Council won’t do it.)

———

And finally: I’d really like to see Tommy Wells get more aggressive within the Council. Sure, the rest of the Council let you down, and in a perfect world it would be wise to sit back and let wounds heal.

But if the culture of corruption and ineptitude that has been the hallmark of the current Mayor and Council is any indication, now is not the time to be quiet, Tommy. Get angry! Get aggressive! Carry that big stick and use it. Your constituents didn’t vote you in to be a soft voice, but to call out the bullshit when you saw it. So….

Just do it!

Hold your colleagues accountable! Point out when things don’t make any sense! Be a champion for sanity in government! Take on the mantel of moving the city into the future, while many of your colleagues want to drag it back into the past!

Seriously, Tommy, you’re one of the few – if not the only – Council member with whom I don’t really have a beef (the same definitely can’t be said of my Ward’s Councilman, Jack Evans). You’ve had plenty of time to lick your wounds and brush off the dirt from being smacked down – now is the time to get back to fighting!

Ahem….

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

random thursday rant

1. Pink Floyd releases The Dark Side of the Moon. (March 1)

One of my favorite albums of all time, really turned me on to both prog rock as a teen and the lyrics (written by Roger Waters when he was 29) are wise beyond their years. I can’t wait for the immersion version box set of this album to come out later this month, because it should sound lovely and provide a ton of excellent live tracks and outtakes.

2. Supreme Court rules on Roe v. Wade. (January 22)

I’m a firm believer in the rights of women to have the final say on all of their healthcare choices. As a man, I have no right to tell a woman what she can or can’t do with her own body. Abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

3. President Nixon suspends all U.S. military operations in Vietnam. (January 15)

This senseless war had deep impact on my teenage years, as the baby boomers started to make sense of its aftermath via movies. And the anti-war protest songs make up a great deal of my favorite songs of all time. Less than a month after Nixon ended operations, the first POWs were released.

4. The World Trade Center opens in New York City. (April 4)

We all know the fate of these twin towers. But on this day, they were a symbol of new optimism in a world that was just getting its global trade system back in order after World Ward II. (Note: just one month later, the Sears Tower opened in Chicago, beating the WTC for right to “world’s tallest building.”)

5. Ron Blomberg of the New York Yankees becomes the first designated hitter in Major League Baseball. (April 6)

Worst. rule. change. ever. Thanks for nothing, George Steinbrenner. The DH was brought about as a way to try and drum up fan support for MLB. Unfortunately, it ended up contributing to pitchers who are as wide as they are tall, with precious few skills other than throwing a ball. Thank goodness the National League hasn’t fallen for the DH (save for spring training and inter-league play at AL ballparks).

6. Skylab is launched. (May 14)

As a kid (and heck, even now) I was a huge fan of outer space, NASA, astronauts and everything associated with them. Skylab paved the way for the Space Shuttle and in the International Space Station – not a bad track record for a flawed space station. The Skylab exhibit at National Air and Space Museum is one of my favorites.

7. Secretariat wins the Triple Crown. (June 9)

The horse that many consider the greatest of all time won the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes, and the Belmont Stakes in 1973. Sure, I’m not a big fan of horse racing, but it’s still quite the achievement for a young horse.

8. Gen. Augusto Pinochet leads successful U.S.-backed military coup in Chile. (September 11)

Proof positive that, throughout the years, the United States isn’t always on the “right side” of history.

9. Nixon orders the “Saturday Night Massacre.” (October 20)

Sure, there were plenty of Watergate moments I could have chosen in 1973. But this one is the first one that raised calls for Nixon’s impeachment. I mean, on November 17 he famously proclaimed, “I am not a crook!”

10. The American Psychiatric Association removes homosexuality from DSM-II. (December 15)

One of the landmark decisions in the ongoing quest for recognition of and equality for the LGBT population of the United States – and an appropriate ending to this list, given today is the day that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” finally became history.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

ten on tuesday: headlines from the year you were born

Wells, in his role as Chair of the Transportation Committee on the Council, worked hard to improve transit infrastructure throughout DC. In particular, he worked had via his (now former) position on the board of WMATA to expand Metro commuter services to Wards 7 and 8 on the east side of the Anacostia River.

In other words: he was working to improve the overall livability of these Wards, which often complain of being Balkanized and held in lower esteem by the rest of the city and city government.

And this, to a politician from one of said Wards, is electoral kryptonite.

Why?

Because the politicians who are successful in these Wards – from CMs Alexander (Ward 7) and Barry (Ward 8), to Chairman Brown and, to an extent, Mayor Gray – rose to success by leveraging their Wards’ second-class status. Their continued electoral success hinges on the status quo remaining just that.

And what does Wells do? He looks to change the playing field by improving Metro and DDOT services in these Wards. And while this is a popular move amongst many in said Wards (and likely amongst a majority in the Wards west of the Anacostia River, where improved transit and transportation infrastructure has made these areas desirable places to live and work), it’s seen as an affront to the old-guard political machines of Wards 7 and 8, as well as the old-guard relics who dominate the DC Democratic State Committee.

So, aside from the fact that Wells blew open the SUV buying scandal with Chairman Brown (which eventually steamrolled into a full-tilt federal investigation into campaign finance irregularities with Brown’s recent elections for At-Large Council and Council Chairman), he also was working to destroy the political backbone that brought Kwame Brown, Yvette Alexander, Marion Barry and other Ward 7 and 8 politicians into power.

So what does a threatened animal do? In this case, Brown fought back, but in a way that is the embodiment of petulant playground politics. In the role of school bully, he took Wells’ “toys” (i.e. the Transportation committee and WMATA board position) when Wells threatened to undermine part of the bully’s turf.

Frankly, I hope that this serves as a wake-up call to a new political guard in Wards 7 and 8: a group of open-minded, progressive leaders who truly embrace bringing the east side of the Anacostia out of its Balkanized past and present, instead looking toward a future where there one city isn’t just a political catchphrase, but a comfortable and accepted reality.

(In particular, I’m looking at you, Veronica, to lead in Ward 7!)

I tip my hat to Tommy Wells for keeping his commentary almost exclusively constructive and positive. Having just heard him on Kojo’s show, he was the epitome of class, accepting his new committee chairmanship (of the Libraries, Parks and Recreation, as well as Planning), and reaffirming his “loyalty… to the residents of the District.”

We haven’t heard the last of this – not by a longshot.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

another angle on the tommy wells demotion

U2. This is a tough one for me, because I really like U2′s music. But I have a tough time getting too excited about their latest releases. I guess that No Line On The Horizon just left me… wanting. Wanting the band to be less ponderous, sounding more fresh. They always release a single that suggests a turn toward something new and different (e.g. “Vertigo” or “Put On Your Boots”), but the rest of the album sounds like the same-’ol, post Achtung Baby U2. They’ve done well by this formula – I really like All That You Can’t Leave Behind and How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb – but they seem to be coasting along these days. And the new songs I’ve heard from their current tour don’t suggest anything new coming along anytime soon.

But the real point of my bringing up this post is to discuss something else where my support used to be somewhat strong, but has since waned:

Instant-Runoff Voting. I once was a believer in IRV. I even thought that it had a place within a PAC I helped form here in DC, to be used for endorsement of candidates – though even then, I was a bit skeptical about its merit. My biggest problem with IRV is the false sense of support it can create for the victor. I think that IRV (in a modified form, but still IRV) was suggested for the PAC because, under more traditional voting systems, the group seldom came to enough consensus to endorse candidates and initiatives in local politics. So IRV was a means to bring about endorsement more-or-less for the sake of endorsement, even if the bulk of the membership was divided.

Since IRV became the law of the PAC, endorsements have been handed out in many races. But these endorsements are often hollow. The IRV system can be played via political gamesmanship (e.g. not ranking all candidates, instead ranking just one and selecting “no endorsement” as the other option – a valid tactic, but one that can force a particular outcome). When the system is played, the outcome is seldom one of consensus; rather, it’s one the divides membership, dilutes support for the endorsed candidate, and makes the PAC and the endorsed look weak.

This folly was brought to the fore in my mind today by a post at Greater Greater Washington that suggested that IRV could be a solution to the quandary posed by the upcoming special (and open) election to fill the At-Large Council seat vacated by Kwame Brown. An IRV poll was part of the post, and wouldn’t you know it: supporters of two leading candidates embarked in the same political gamesmanship that makes IRV farcical in endorsement processes. Any “victory” in this flawed poll (it also allowed unlimited casting of votes by individuals, which is a flaw in the polling software used) is a hollow as an IRV victory would be in a real-world election.

Are current election models perfect? No. But IRV is not a great solution, either, and has the likelihood to produce hollow victories for candidates who will enjoy little real-world support.

So IRV, it was an interesting relationship, but I think that the promise of instant results and guaranteed compromise outcomes doesn’t really work in most real-world situations.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

things i used to love

“Educating people who might be the first in their families to attend college, creating a college based on open access and lifelong learning, a highly regarded low cost law school and creating a community college is taking up the rear? Typical DC Elitist!”

But Tom Sherwood is right: UDC is an institution that has no clear purpose and should be re-evaluated as to its mission and goals.

UDC has three core elements: a traditional four-year undergraduate school, a law school, and a two-year community college. All of these schools are available at low cost to DC residents, which appears to be a benefit to those most in need of financial assistance. They also give a very “state-like” look-and-feel to the District, which longs to be more than “the last colony” in the United States.

Yet to my eye, of all these schools only one should continue: the community college.

Why? Let me explain:

First things first: college education is not a right. Access to the education is a right, but receiving a college education isn’t. College – and in this case I mean an accredited, four-year degree-granting institution – shouldn’t be a given simply because a student has met the minimum requirements of graduation from high school. The sense that college is a right is a byproduct of the so-called “generation of entitlement” – the same movement that always asks “what about me?,” creates grade inflation throughout the educational system, and causes folks to look down on available, if not exciting, jobs because they are “below my station.”

But college is never a given, and not everybody should go into a four-year college – or even any college – if college won’t help them or is too academically challenging.

But for those who are college material, DC isn’t hurting for opportunity, nor are DC residents without affordable options without counting UDC as one of said options.

The District is home to many well-regarded and accredited undergratuate institutions. Within DC’s boundaries, Georgetown University, The George Washington University, American University, Howard University, Catholic University and Trinity University all offer Bachelor’s degrees that are held in high regard. Spread your reach a bit outside of DC and Johns Hopkins University (Baltimore), University of Maryland (College Park), George Mason University (Fairfax), The United States Naval Academy (Annapolis), and Marymount University (Arlington) all provide well-regarded undergraduate education with full accreditation of their programs.

The same can’t be said for UDC. While certain programs receive accreditation, the whole school has had a tenuous relationship with such status over its history. And like much of the District’s public education system, a lot of money is poured into UDC without much in the way of positive results.

As for UDC’s law school, while I admire its affordability, law school degrees often carry more weight and perceived legitimacy depending on the reputation of the school. And in a town where Georgetown, GWU and American University all feature highly-respected law programs, UDC’s program pales by comparison in terms of reputation.

Why talk of reputation? Because in the real, cutthroat world of business, reputation matters. And in DC and the surrounding area, where connections are the secret gold, attending a school with a top-notch reputation makes a big difference. School with good reputations have alumni networks that open doors. Yes, it’s unfair, but it’s a real-world concern in many fields.*

And when it comes to both four-year undergraduate education and law school, UDC’s reputation is anything but stellar. As mentioned earlier, the undergraduate program dodges the accreditation bullet time and again, which hurts the school’s reputation both within the DC area and, especially, in the national and international realm. And the law school, while a bargain and somewhat well regarded in certain legal circles, still doesn’t have the reputation – and thus the connection possibilities – of its fellow DC-area schools, not to mention law schools across the U.S.

But UDC’s supporters continue to beat the drum of affordability, which is a legitimate concern in a city where many college-eligible students are discouraged by soaring tuition and fees.

A fact that a lot of UDC’s boosters fail to mention is that DC residents, with few exceptions, qualify for in-state tuition reciprocity at four-year state colleges and universities throughout the United States. So if affordability is bandied about as an barrier to access, it shouldn’t be: the University of Maryland is one of these reciprocity-granting schools, and it is on Metrorail’s green line, which is about as accessible as can be. And getting in-state tuition at heavy-hitting schools like the University of Illinois, Penn State, University of Massachusetts, Arizona State University and the like is nothing to scoff at!

Furthermore, financial assistance – in the form of scholarships, grants, fellowships, student loans and the like – is available to almost all college students, especially those with the greatest financial burden. Some schools are even “need-blind” in terms of admissions: if accepted to one of these schools, the school will fund the tuition that the student’s family can’t afford without question.

So if DC student does well in high school, earning good grades in tough courses, opportunity is there, even without UDC entering the picture.

And what of UDC’s mission, then? What of the students, as Kinlow mentions, who may be the first in their family to attend college? Or of the students who otherwise couldn’t get access to college because of academic disadvantage?

This is where UDC does have a single, important mission: creating and running an excellent community college. Community colleges are an essential stepping stone for entry into competitive four-year colleges and universities for students who may not have excelled in high school, those who dropped out and then received a GED, or those who aren’t yet ready to commit to the challenge of a four-year program. Community colleges focus on core curricula, and receiving and Associate’s degree (especially one with excellent grades) from an accredited community college usually leads directly to enrollment and, eventually, completion of a four-year program. Most often, the core curriculum represented by the Associate’s degree counts toward the first two years of core curriculum work at four-year institutions. Furthermore, most of the top-tier four-year institutions (including heavyweights like Williams and Amherst Colleges, perennial top-10 schools in the US News rankings) primarily accept transfers from community colleges.

If UDC were to be reorganized into a leading two-year community college, helping elevate students into four-year degree programs, providing vocational education for those who need a leg up to get into certain fields, and offering DC’s students the chance to become competitive in the world of higher education, they would realize this core part of their mission in ways more far-reaching than now:

“[to] prepare students for immediate entry into the workforce, the next level of education, specialized employment opportunities and life-long learning.

A District of Columbia Community College that is truly a leader in two-year colleges would serve as an ideal model for other cities: providing its students the tools and knowledge to excel throughout life, whether its looking toward a more advanced level of education or simply building a solid academic base upon which to build a better life. Having a highly-regarded, solidly accredited two-year college trumps the current, under-performing reality that is today’s UDC.

So jettison the four-year undergraduate program and reconsider the law school, instead focusing DC’s tax dollars on a top-notch community college. That is the gateway to opportunity for the people of DC. And for DC residents who want a four-year education off the bat: take advantage of the financial resources available, throw yourself into the application, reach for the stars.

But if the current UDC model is perpetuated, the District’s land-grant university will remain, as Sherwood suggests, at the bottom of a very deep stack of institutions of higher education. It’s not typical DC elitism, Eugene – it’s the hard truth.

* – I attended a school – Connecticut College – that is very often confused with a larger state university that is well known for its championship basketball teams, and while many people recognize the quality of the college I attended, just as many disregard it when they learn that it isn’t the more widely known state school. Reputation does count, and it can open doors on its own, unfair as that may seem. The real world isn’t always fair.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

why dc doesn’t need udc

Here’s how they describe themselves:

“The Committee of 100 advocates responsible planning and land use in Washington, D.C. Our work is guided by the values inherited from the L’Enfant Plan and McMillan Commission, which give Washington its historic distinction and natural beauty, while responding to the special challenges of 21st century development. We pursue these goals through public education, research and civic action, and we celebrate the city’s unique role as both the home of the District’s citizens and the capital of our nation.”

The thing is, both the L’Enfant Plan and McMillan Commission failed to predict how DC would develop in the post-WWII era – in other words, they’re still married to the “car is king, damn the cyclists and pedestrians” and “big box stores and strip malls are the best thing for retail” schools of thought.

And just yesterday, they asked Vince Gray, the Mayor-Elect of DC, to fire Gabe Klein and Harriet Tregoning, two of the best assets from the outgoing administration of Adrian Fenty. They argue that moves made by Klein and Tregoning were made unilaterally, without community input and without a vision for sustainability.

While I appreciate their right to express an opinion on these matters, they are wrong and what they suggest would not benefit the District or its citizens.

In particular, they single out Klein’s multi-modal approach toward running the District Department of Transportation (DDOT). Klein is the first DDOT head to think beyond the single-occupant car, and he has made the District a safer place for those who use mass transit, bicycles and their feet to get around their neighborhoods and the city. In a world where petroleum prices continue to rise (and one where the supply of crude oil is declining at an ever increasing rate), Klein’s philosophy is somewhat self-sustaining: safe and reliable mass transit, protected bike lanes and safe parking for bicycles, and well-paved and properly-lit sidewalks and multi-use paths allow the citizens of the District to minimize their use of private automobiles for day-to-day transportation. Sure, there are parts of the city where the idea hasn’t quite caught on, but cultural change takes time.

But the Committee of 100 thinks that such change is irrelevant, even dangerous. They seem to move forward by looking squarely in a rear-view mirror. And what else would you expect from an organization whose membership is comprised entirely of old-time DC political cronies who relish having one of their own taking over as Mayor? Give a little bit of relevance, a little bit of power, and watch DC’s government become increasingly out-of-touch with reality.

So, in trying to be honest about their goals, their mission should read:

“The Committee of 100 advocates reactionary and irrelevant land misuse in Washington, D.C. Our work is guided by outdated values inherited from the L’Enfant Plan, McMillan Commission and the 1980s, and seeks to keep Washington mired in 20th century design philosophies, while responding to outcries from citizens who still think that Marion Barry was the best Mayor the District has ever had. We pursue these goals through public misinformation, rhetoric and public shouting matches, and we celebrate the city’s unique ability to be both the dysfunctional home of the District’s citizens and the crumbling capital of our nation.”

Frankly, the best place for the Committee of 100 is on a barge, floating somewhere in the Atlantic where they can’t insert spanners in the gears of progress.

And if you’re reading this, Mr. Gray, I hope that you have a fair enough mind to ignore the Committee of 100′s suggestions about Klein and Tregoning. If we lose their intelligence and vision, the future of DC, both short-term and long, is far, far less bright.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

can we just send the committee of 100 out to sea?

I’d just dropped off sprite an an hour too early for either of us. Our car bears only one bumper sticker: a circa 2004 “Dean for America” badge.

And one recently-arrived member of Glenn Beck’s idiot zombie army noticed the sticker and yelled the first thing that came to mind.

“Socialist!”

Amazingly coherent at the time, I turned to this guy and replied in kind:

“…and proud of it!”

This caused the idiot zombie to recoil for a few seconds, the pepper me with accusations that:

1. I must not understand the U.S. Constitution; and

2. I must not value freedom or being taxed without representation.

I addressed these in reverse order. Firstly, I asked him if he knew the full context of the Boston Tea Party, and whether he grasped that I, as a DC resident, was truly taxed without representation.

Again, he recoiled.

And then I told him that I respect his Constitutional right to express his beliefs and assemble peacefully with like-minded individuals. I also mentioned that he should respect my right to disagree.

(Did I mention that this was an 80-second light?)

And again, the idiot zombie recoiled in anger.

I then added, as the light was only seconds from turning green:

“Welcome to the District of Columbia. Enjoy our city, and please leave your money here.”

The final response?

“Socialist!”

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

“Socialist!”

This weekend I’m taking on the “Diabolical Double” at the Garrett County Gran Fondo. It’s a tough course: 125 miles with almost 16,000 feet of climbing, most of it in short burts of 12-16% grade. It’s insane, and should be a great challenge.

- – – – -

This hot and sweltering weather is not a lot of fun for me, but I’m making do. Our garden is flourishing, and we’re trying a new crop this year: peanuts! We may have a crop come fall – yum!

- – – – -

The DC political season is in full swing, and a PAC that I helped found, DC for Democracy, just held its endorsement vote for various offices’ primary elections. The meeting to vote was orderly and had great discussion – totally impressive, and the results of the vote showed a measured and thought-filled process of voting. Kudos, DC4D, you’ve grown up nicely.

- – – – -

I’m loving the FIFA World Cup! The competition has been compelling and a lot of fun to watch. It’s great to see Team USA perform beyond expectations, and the same goes for Japan. Personally, I’m rooting for Germany, and have a soft spot for The Netherlands, my fatherland.

And how can you not like the drone of the vuvuzelas? My friend, David, isn’t fond of them (at least when it comes to his podcast, The FredCast), but I think he’s missing out on a goldmine. Listen to the possibility! (This is an AAC file that works in iTunes, FYI.)

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

getting diabolical (and other thoughts)

The District of Columbia is in a financial mess. We’re spending like mad, yet not bringing in enough revenue to pay for every commitment we have toward programs large and small. This situation stands to leave the District in a long-term financial hole unless something is done to make ends meet.

This is a matter of simple budgeting, from the simplest point of view: more money needs to come in, while less money needs to be spent (i.e. go out). It’s the same kind of budget balancing that most people do in their daily lives.

The problem lies in the fact that, when others’ money is involved, most people don’t see it as a big deal if programs bloat out of control while folks who can afford to pay more into the system continue to get a kid glove treatment. And these programs come in all shapes and sizes, from those that are smart long-term infrastructure investments to those that are tired systems that need to be retooled, rebooted or cut altogether.

Adding a further spanner to the works is that this is an election year for half of the DC Council, as well as the Mayor’s office. So there are certain issues that are political “third rails,” even if these things are necessary.

I’m glad that I’m not running for office, because this is what my budget would’ve proposed, in part:

• Creation of new tax brackets for those earning $100,000 and up, with brackets lines at $250,000, $500,000, 750,000 and $1 million plus. Those brackets would pay higher taxes than now, thus bringing more funding into the government’s general fund. CM Jim Graham (D-Ward 1) proposed something akin to this, but was shot down.
• A per-ounce tax on sodas (both sugar-sweetened and diet sodas, as neither formula has any nutritional benefit) that would fund higher quality school lunch programs that cook fresh, seasonally-appropriate food. CM Mary Cheh (D-Ward 3) proposed this, and it is in the current budget proposal.
• A 10¢ per bottle fee for all non-reusable plastic containers, whether for beverages, detergents, etc., that would be used for implementation of clean energy technologies throughout District infrastructure. This expands on a proposal that was bandied about by CM Tommy Wells (D-Ward 6).
• A complete overhaul of Department of Motor Vehicles and DDOT auto registration and parking fees. Double base registration fees, and calculate the base fee not only on gross vehicle weight but also EPA fuel economy, with small discounts for use of hybrid, electric and ULEV technologies. Increase annual residential parking pass fees to a minimum of $150 per year, and charge extra for parking permits for cars over 16 feet in length (e.g. $250 for many mid-size SUVs, $350 for full-size SUVs and trucks). Use these fees to fund the development of alternate transportation infrastructure, including bike lanes, bike racks, streetcars, Metrobus/Metrorail, and pedestrian-only zones in Downtown and other high-traffic zones.
• Do a complete analysis of each DC government department’s staffing and infrastructure, cutting redundancies and shoring up shortcomings without any spending increase.

This list could go on and on, but the basic gist is this: when a city is in a financial mess, sacrifice and austerity are needed. More money needs to come into the city’s coffers, and less needs to be spent.

Politicians don’t particularly like the concept of asking sacrifice from voters. Sacrifice isn’t popular, and voters like to rally around the pet projects and services they support. Voters are swayed by emotion and direct impact on their lives, and when proposals to cut back or eliminate programs are made it’s seen as political suicide.

Yet in times of financial crisis, doing the right thing for the long-term success of a city trumps short-term placation of the electorate. Get the house in order first, invest in long-term infrastructure, share sacrifice and make sure that everybody in the city is involved.

These are the truly hard decisions. This is what separates future-looking, pragmatic leaders from those who would rather cash in short-term benefits at the expense of long-term stability and growth.

Why am I on this kick? Because there is a choice in the race for Mayor of the District of Columbia (which, in all fairness, will be determined in the Democratic primary in September). One candidate is an often-controversial, sometimes remote and aloof incumbent who has made some incredibly hard choices for the city to help improve its long-term prospects. The other is a more old-school DC politico who, while a popular consensus builder within the Council, is touting a platform that would largely reinstate the same old and tired brand of DC pseudo-populist politics that brought the city to its financial knees many times before.

And the latter introduced a budget before the Council this morning that sacrificed essential infrastructure improvements and needed tax bracket reform to try and win a few votes come September. It was a move that was calculated, and one that failed miserably in the public perception.

And it made cemented my decision on who to back for Mayor: Adrian Fenty.

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

austerity 101 for dc politicians and voters

Global climate change is real. The scientific community, which used to be somewhat varied in their conclusions on man’s role in accelerating climate change, is now fairly unified in the conclusion that mankind’s largely unchecked desire for big industry and big money has resulted in massive shifts in the ecosystem. The level of pollutants and other substances being introduced into the ecosystem by man overwhelms the earth’s ability to react to these activities, and as such the global systemic balance has been tipped.

According to most scientists, we are at a crucial, final point where global climate change can be slowed down to more “natural” levels, so long as countries engage in serious systemic and behavioral changes. And many countries have started to change their ways and be more future-thinking.

Sadly, the United States has never been willing to be part of needed change, even though we are one of the greatest consumers of climate-negative goods and practices. Why has the U.S. been on the wrong side of this argument? Greed and misinformation, much of which has been perpetuated by non-stop fear mongering on the part of conservative politicians, big (polluting) industry, right-wing noise media, and disreputable scientists.

Americans, by and large, fear sacrifice and change. They may say that “change is good,” but when asked to truly change behaviors and routines, there’s often a sense of “it’s not my problem – let the other guys battle it out.” And the fear mongers lap this up, trying to debunk sound science via obfuscation and the threat that “all the jobs will go away,” or that “your taxes will go up,” or that “you won’t be able to afford the cheap crap you get at Walmart.”

The saddest part is that the supporters of these politicians and industries lap this all up and parrot these ideas AS LOUDLY AS POSSIBLE, as if volume levels were synonymous with truth. It’s a very sad state.

I’m most enraged with the politicians who buy this bunk. They could be leaders, they could think beyond their next electoral cycle and ask the question: are you making the world a better place for future generations? And I honestly believe that very few of these politicians ever ask that question of themselves, or that they truly care about their constituents beyond getting their votes the next time they’re up for election. My message to these politicians: grow a set, be willing to be leaders and vote for the future, not the present.

Yes, there will be sacrifice. Behavioral change isn’t easy, especially on a societal level. There are a lot of modern “conveniences” that are destructive, at least as they are practiced now. However, when asked to sacrifice in the past, the people of the United States have been able to adapt and, in the process, discover that the new ways of doing things are often better and, amazingly, more logical and convenient. It’s simply a matter of being creative, taking initiative, thinking about more than just personal preservation in the here-and-now, and realizing how finite everything really is in terms of the hunk of rock we all inhabit.

I try to do my best to ensure that I leave the world in better shape than it was when I was born. Bit by bit, I’m changing the way I interact with the world to try and minimize the negative effect a modern lifestyle has on the environment. If it means that I pay a bit more to buy food that is produced by more eco-friendly processes, I’m willing to do it (and I do). If it means that I need to pay more taxes to help subsidize the construction of more mass transit and railroads, or to fund the development of cleaner energy sources, I’m happy to do so. If it means that I take fewer long-distance flights, that’s fine. If it means adapting to the different quality of LED and CF lights, bring it on. And if it means not driving my own car for every errand, visit, business trip or vacation, that’s just fine by me.

And I know I’m not alone.

And I hope that President Obama takes charge at the Global Climate Conference. We are at the final bail-out point before climate change will accelerate beyond human control, and the United States has a chance to be a true world leader once more – and to show up the Congressional naysayers who should question why they dare call themselves “leaders.”

This is a post from randomduck.com. Copyright © 2012 R.D. Riet. Covered under Creative Commons.

leaving a better world for the future