Who says the president doesn't get enough R&R? Prior to his Martha's Vineyard vacation -- which was prior to his approaching Labor Day weekend at Camp David -- the president was out West and got a chance to try out a fly rod that had been given to him as a gift. These official White House photos were from the president's August trip to Montana. He fished the East Gallatin River. The scenes remind me of the yuppie hatches that used to occur regularly on the Battenkill in Vermont -- newbies all duded up in Orvis gear wading into the stream with expensive rods for the first time. If the President actually enjoyed this, maybe he can talk the Secret Service into letting him wet a line on Big Hunting Creek in Thurmont, near Camp David. (Since he's a lefty, maybe our own Lefty Kreh could guide him.) Then again, I'll bet cash money that the president's moment in the Gallatin will hold up as his first and last attempt at fly fishing. Thanks to Joey Da Nephew, who dug these photos out of cyberspace for his uncle.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:02 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

My Sunday column: Two men, two lives from the street -- one escapes

Relatives of one of the men posted comments.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Politico reports that the President is taking a vacation after his vacation. Several readers, presumably progressives and liberals who voted for Barack Obama, responded negatively -- and with the kind of crude and vulgar name-calling one expects from the right-wing blogosphere -- to my Wednesday column knocking the First Family's Martha's Vineyard holiday while unemployment heads toward 10 percent and Mr. Obama leaves Congress to grapple with the health care reform. And he's only been on the job seven months.

Symbolism being everything when it comes to the presidency, this kind of behavior doesn't strike me as that of a "change agent" determined to turn the house upside down. It's not so much Bush-like as it is Clintonian; Bill and Hill summered in the Vineyard and the Hamptons. And I guess that was cool, or we didn't notice or care as much, because the economy was strong (unemployment was but 4 percent when the Clintons left office.) Things are very different right now, and the president should reflect that difference. Given his clear empathy for working people, you'd expect Mr. Obama to be down-to-earth careful in these choices; it would have been refreshing, anyway.

I suppose Mr. Obama might have intended to send a reassuring, confidence-building don't-worry-take-vacation message to the American people. But when you go to the Vineyard, and pay $25,000 for a rental place, after just seven months on the job, with millions who can no longer afford vacation . .  it doesn't work, and it's disappointing.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

There has been a small flood of e-mail, from the left and from the right, in response to my Wednesday column about President Obama's vacation to Martha's Vineyard. A sampling:

michael mcclintock
austerlitz, ny: think about it a minute: who is on expensive vacations now?
very rich people who don't care about health care or catastrophic
deficits because they're immune; congress, many of whom are not even
meeting with their constituents because they don't want to hear any
criticism, and the president; be interesting to research how many
presidents have taken their families on "state" visits, one after
another, month after month, and then after just seven months need to
take them on a vacation; it's a disgrace, even if soldiers weren't dying

 Brian:
"I enjoyed your column today. It addressed something that has been bothering me just a little. Watching the news last week I saw the first family visiting and enjoying the Grand Canyon. I thought that seemed like a nice little vacation. Earlier in the summer there were photo's of them in Paris and London and Moscow. I know there was some work involved in those trips but the photo's show there was plenty of shopping, dining and having fun as well. Those trips seemed like nice little get aways as well. There have also been the date night trips to Chicago and New York / Broadway and around Washington. Now the luxury beach house vacation. All of this in just seven months. In that same period of time I was able to take my family to the beach for a four day long weekend and I consider myself very lucky to be able to do that. And...... if flying an empty Air Force One to New York for photo's cost us over $250,000, what do each of these fun little excursions with hundreds of support staff cost us in tax dollars?"

Richard:
"I read your column today re: the perhaps unwise decision of President Obama to take a vacation at this particularly critical time in our national history. I like the man but, in my opinion, I believe his continuing tendency to 'outsource' his initiatives is simply due to his lack of any real management or executive experience. I also don't think things would be much different if John McCain or Hillary Clinton were in the job. I think now as I thought back when the three of them were in the running that it is a sad state of affairs in this country that we had such a poor choice of candidates for the highest office in the land. None of the three senators had any real executive experience. Whatever your political persuasion may be, at least George W. Bush & Bill Clinton were actually governors at one time before getting the top job and did have at least 4-years of executive experience at being governor before becoming president.
 
Arthur:
"Have you too joined the ranks of those finding sundry reasons to bash Obama. How would  Obama's presence in DC over these ten days resolve the problems of unemployment, two wars and a divisive health care debate. I would submit that Obama has been more engaged in his seven months than Bush in any two year period of his presidency. If anything, my concern was that Obama was approaching overexposure. Please note that one of the perks of the title Chief Executive of the US is that you are not required to accrue leave time. But in a political climate where the President is pilloried for swatting a fly, any activity can be shaded negatively."

Joey:
"Of course, you couldn't resist making George Bush and the "right wing" nuts part of the problem.  And, of course, there are no left wing nuts when a left wing nut is the author. Anyway, you forgot to mention the George Bush stopped golfing while soldiers were dying in war.  Guess what,  I saw Obama golfing while soldiers were
dying in war and you didn't mention it. I am sure it was just an oversight...nah, a left wing nut. You idiots are so obvious and you wonder why the media or rags, as they are now known, are going bankrupt."

A proud retired Defense Department employee and Army Reserve veteran:
"I am amazed that you, a typical liberal big-city newspaper columnist  and therefore a big admirer of President Obama, would take him to task for vacationing in Martha's Vineyard, in spite of the problems this country faces. The president, whether on a "deserved" vacation or not, is still responsible for running the country,and that responsibility does not end when he leaves Washington. However, that is not the reason I am writing to you. . . . I know that you reside on the left end of the political spectrum, so your political  views do not surprise me at all, and I am not writing to criticize them. What really disgusts me is that in order to buttress those views, you and many of your fellow columnists still deem it necessary to take gratuitous, nasty pot-shots at former president George W. Bush, such as 'George W. Bush set a record for presidential vacationing; he was the laziest commander-in-chief ever,' and  '{Obama's} not lazy like George W. Bush was, so his vacation is well-deserved.' . . . I'm sure you will scoff, but I believe that President Bush served this country well, both in and out of uniform. And who are you to trash him? Even though I don't know you personally, I bet I would be 99 per cent correct in saying that you never bothered to serve this country in the military or in any other way. And, most of you journalists are, to borrow a phrase from a past vice-president,a bunch of effete snobs out of touch with the vast majority of Americans."

Chris:
"Great article on the Vineyard vacation.  Think your point is well justified, but do you have to do the Bush bashing during it all.  If that is not enough, you drag the best president in history, next to Lincoln and Washington, Ronald Reagan, in to the equation.  At some point, you have to give up on the Bush bashing.  I am assuming you are a registered democrat and have a reasonably small intellect to continue writing things that everyone else in the democratic party likes to do, Bush Bash. . . . Come on big fella, come up with something new.  Get beyond the boundaries of just regurgitating the same crap you hear from the liberal left leaning media.  I know you can do it.  No, actually I don’t.  I think it is pretty sad.  Fortunately, you have a job with this left leaning publication.  How about an article on increasing taxes in Maryland.  Bet you are a guy that likes taxes.  You promoted Canada and Europe for all their vacation time.  How about you move there and write.  You would fit right in.  Who do you think you are kidding.  Write an article to try and criticize Obama’s vacation only to try and promote your own hatred toward anything Republican.  Bet you were part of that 26% on the lower right of page 13, the same page as your left handed criticism of Obama’s vacation."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:28 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)
        

Massachusetts, my natal state, might be true blue, and it might be a bastion of liberalism, but, having covered court-ordered busing there in the 1970s -- and having heard racist protesters jeer and ridicule with jarring vulgarity Ted Kennedy in the midst of it -- and having seen various relatives and friends, registered Democrats, swoon over Republican governors -- Weld and Romney -- I figured some day voters of the Bay State would send Uncle Teddy into retirement.

The best chance of that came in 1994, when Romney challenged Kennedy. The Democratic incumbent was said to have been vulnerable that year -- old-style activist liberalism was out, even in Massachusetts, and a new tide of Contract-with-America conservatism was about to sweep the country.

But the rule of thumb about Massachusetts politics proved true in the face of all that -- anyone with a suit could get 42 percent of the vote against Teddy Kennedy, but no one could get 50.

In the 1994 general election, Romney didn't even get 42 percent. His vote percentage was 41. Kennedy's was 58.

Kennedy spent $10 million on his campaign, Romney $7 million.

Romney subsequently won election as Massachusetts governor and, last year, ran for president.

Kennedy went from being an embarrassment to a respected elder. His transformation from fratboy-manchild of the U.S. Senate to its lion is one of the most interesting stories in American politics. People throughout the land wonder about Kennedy's staying power -- why the voters of Massachusetts kept re-electing him in the face of the Reagan revolution and post-revolution, and in the face of Kennedy's troubled personal life.

But don't forget: He became a U.S. senator at the age of 30. Relatively speaking, he was a boy. He'd taken his older brother's seat in 1962. JFK was assassinated the following year. Five years later, Bobby Kennedy was murdered in Los Angeles.

With all that -- the tragedy and martyrdom, the extraordinary sacrifices of one family in service to the public -- Massachusetts voters would never abandon Teddy Kennedy, the little brother.

Not even after Mary Jo Kopechne's death on Martha's Vineyard.

Much fuss was made last month about the 40th anniversary of Apollo 11 mission to the moon, but this was the first time in a long time I did not hear -- probably because I host a radio show and its broadcast hours conflict with Rush Limbaugh's -- references to the 40th anniversary of Chappaquiddick, the accident and death of Mary Jo Kopechne having occurred on the same historic weekend as the lunar landing. His behavior in Chappaquiddick meant the then 37-year-old Kennedy would never become president of the United States.

But it didn't keep him from winning re-election -- in 1970, the very next year -- to the Senate.

There were other embarrassing moments in Ted Kennedy's life -- drinking, womanizing, questions about his behavior when a nephew was accused of rape in Florida -- but in a 1991 speech at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard (the university from which he'd been dismissed 40 years earlier for cheating on an exam) Ted Kennedy took responsibility for "faults in the conduct of my private life" and pledged to change.

Eventually he grew up, restored his integrity and settled into a long run of serious public service, a reliable and committed liberal associated with, among many good causes, a decades-old effort to make health insurance affordable and accessible to every American.
  
The last 18 years of Edward M. Kennedy's career were the most productive and the most impressive, and he seemed to keep faith with the words he spoke at Harvard in that public mea culpa:  "Individual faults and frailties are no excuse to give in -- and no exemption from the common obligation to give of ourselves. Today, more than ever before, I believe that each of us as individuals must not only struggle to make a better world, but to make ourselves better, too. And in this life, those endeavors are never finished."

Rest in peace, EMK.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:34 AM | Permalink | Comments (21)
        

Rep. Elijah E. Cummings) released the following statement today in response to the death of Senator Kennedy:

"Today, I join the world in mourning the loss of a man who will forever be a true American hero. For decades, Senator Kennedy has been a stalwart in our community, fighting for our children, for our seniors, and for the best interests of millions of families across the nation. Through his last day, we witnessed in him the same courage, determination, and selfless service that have characterized his constant efforts to lift up the lives of all Americans.
“Senator Kennedy’s dedication to creating opportunities and improving the lives of every single individual, whether through quality education or affordable health care, created an impact that will be felt by generations yet unborn. Although he will not physically be with us this year when his dream of quality, affordable health care for all is realized, his relentless leadership and commitment to this issue will be present in the hearts and minds of the Congress and the American people.
“Senator Kennedy has been and will continue to be an inspiration to us all, leading by example and setting an incredibly high standard for all of us to follow. My deepest thoughts and endless prayers go out to his family as they search for solace from this tragic loss.”

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 5:02 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

These two young men meet in my Sunday column. Check it out.

For more on Nicholas Braxton -- if you're a business owner or HRD staffer who can hire him -- here's his resume and contact info:

Nicholas E. Braxton
Dolphin041@verizon.net           

QUALIFICATIONS SUMMARY
Personable, detail-oriented and analytical professional with a track record of success. Proven ability to multi-task diverse jobs to increase performance in sales and customer service. Excellent team-player, highly motivated and eager to conquer new challenges. Experienced in logistics, sales and retail operations. I am a reliable and stable professional with the ability to make judicious and effective decisions while maintaining accountability for all actions. My work experience has introduced me to the complexities of doing business and providing service in a challenging and competitive market.

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

The Home Delivery Group, LLC – Tyrone, Georgia (corporate office)
Contracted through Lowes Home Improvement
Customer Service & Delivery Assistant, 11/2007-1/2009
Daily assistance to internal/external customers for Lowe's Home Improvement. 
Track and manage delivery tickets to guarantee on-time delivery standards are met
Work with customers, management and sales to determine most effective logistical methods needed to maximize customer satisfaction
Verify the contents of inventory loads against shipping orders
Translate and communicate information with other team members
 Maintain records such as vehicle logs, records of cargo, billing statements etc. in accordance with regulations.
Present bills and receipts, and collect payments for goods delivered or loaded.
 Report delays, accidents, or other traffic and transportation situations to base or other vehicles, using telephones or mobile two-way radios.
Load/unload freight
Use and maintain equipment in commercial vehicles, such as weighing and measuring devices, tools etc. 

Patuxent Publishing Company – Columbia, Maryland
Customer Service Rep & Classified Mascot, events team (PT) 11/2006-12/2007
Promoted Classified brand at community sponsored events (fairs, festivals, community grand openings, trade shows)
Provided wide range of customer service duties (ad sales, department support, data entry) and often served as primary point of contact at industry events and shows
Distributed company media information, promotional items, newspapers
Data entry support for ads on high volume deadline days
Provided great customer service to heighten moral and support while making contact with pubic
Collaborated on marketing strategies to promote new products and support sales efforts at media sponsored events. 
 

CDE Telemarketing-Largo, Maryland
Call Center Representative (PT) 10/2006-12/2007
High volume call center working on the behalf of the Maryland Fraternal Order of Police
Responsible for outbound an inbound calls to/from potential donors in a timely manner
Ability to communicate benefits of donation program
Accurately submit all forms, payments, invoice receipts to management
Provided quality service and customer satisfaction on every call
Reliable evening and weekend hours performed 

Safeway-Upper Marlboro, Maryland
Courtesy Clerk (PT) 7/2005-10/2006
Provide customer service and safe food handling procedures
Worked in several areas of grocery, learning new skills pertinent to each department
Daily tasks; bag orders, assist customers, load bags, assist with product location, retrieve carts, return merchandise to proper shelves/department, sweep/mop floors, clean spills and damaged products. Provide other routine store request by management.

Chicken Out-Bowie, Maryland
Counter Attendant/Customer Service 4/2004-7/2005
Take orders and provide front line customer service to restaurant patrons
Daily clean and prep of restaurant for morning opening or next shift
Often requested by management to be fill-in host. This included assigning guest to tables, managing larger groups of guest, escorting elder patrons and delivering their meals to the table and fielding other customer request.
Evening, weekend and holiday work performed. Worked flexibly with manager on shift coverage to ensure staffing was maximized.

EDUCATION

Tall Oaks High School - Bowie, Maryland 5/2006
Currently attending Prince George’s Community College, seeking Associates Degree in Business Management
References available upon request

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:11 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

TODAY ON RADIO 88.1 FM  WYPR  WYPO  WYPF  

LISTEN LIVE     RODRICKS FACEBOOK    

TWITTER MIDDAYRODRICKS

1:00-2:00 pm: The Woodstock Music and Arts Festival took place forty years ago.  In this hour, we’ll look at some Maryland connections to this iconic concert with Bob Hieronimus, the prince of pop culture and music historian who painted the famous Woodstock VW bus; Trudy Morgal, formerly of the band Light, who’s featured in a famous photograph from the concert sitting atop the bus; and Michele Hax, a sociology professor at the Community College of Baltimore County; she was there! 

Comments or questions:  midday@wypr.org

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Thank you for all the stories, all the laughs, all the fishing advice, all the good times out on the bay, up in Vermont on the Battenkill, out at Calvert's farm, down in southern Maryland on that incredible bass pond with the hogs under logs. Thanks for all that fun we had trying to find Chessie The Chesapeake Bay Monster. Thanks for the little book of Native American wisdom and philosophy I kept in my fishing vest for 20 years and now have passed on to my son. Thanks for being an inspiration to outdoors writers everywhere. Thanks for being one of the most interesting men in my world -- as close to Hemingway as it gets, but without all the anger and other psychological baggage -- and for trying all these years to get people to care about the natural treasures around them. Many of us do because of you.

Bill Burton, rest in peace.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

The detailed report about the killing of Michael Gough in Baltimore in 1983 and the clemency plea for Mark Farley Grant, the man convicted of the crime, needs to be required summer reading of Gov. Martin O'Malley. Why his office has not acted after having the Innocence Project report on the matter for more than a year is a larger-by-the-day question. Though an O'Malley spokesman said in a terse email two weeks ago that the Grant clemency plea is "under review," anyone who took the time to read this report would have seen the need for quick attention.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

Suddenly there appears, from David Crews, a proud Dundalkian with a camera, this message with a link to fabulous photos of his beloved Baltimore County community: "The prevailing image of Dundalk that exists in the minds of too many people is a figment of fertilized imaginations." Check it out. Some nice stuff here. "I started the modern day Dundalk series, back around 1998, as a photography student at Dundalk Community College," says Crews. "So some shots were custom hand-printed by me in the DCC photo lab. Other photos of mine on the Internet are less fortunate to only have been scanned as jpg files from 35-mm negatives."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 5:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

I dare anyone to beat Meryl Streep for this title, and not just because I've seen previews of the Julia Child film, but because of . . .  everything. 

Go ahead, make my day, argue away: Name a film actress greater than this one. You can't.

Here's a good on-line list of her greatest performances, though I would have put Sophie's Choice at the top, followed quickly by Doubt, and The French Lieutenant's Woman belongs here.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 12:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

(Please note the first comment on this post: From a medic on duty in Iraq.)

One of my readers, who resides in Carroll County, from time to time shares a letter from his son-in-law, an Army lieutenant colonel in Afghanistan. I asked permission to put the author's name on this, but his father-in-law said no. "My understanding is that because he is still on active duty and is not authorized to be a journalist or writer publicly, he does not want his name attached to his writings. He does not wish to have anything jeopardize him or his unit. However, I am sure it would be all right to publish in your blog without his name." Here it is:

Today is the first of August, and marks the end of what has been the
bloodiest month of the war in Afghanistan since the invasion in 2001.
Forty-two of my comrades were killed in action in July, and many more of
our coalition and Afghan partners.  That pales in comparison to the
worst days in Iraq, and I shudder to think of what that number is
besides the daily losses of the big wars.  Certainly it is nothing
compared to the 23,000 casualties in one day at Antietam.  The way we
react today, I don't know how we even fought those wars.

Each death is of course its own tragedy.  Good men one and all, as best
I know - families and friends back home, and the closest of brothers
they leave behind here.  Some deaths were in the heat of combat, in an
ambush or and IED event somewhere out on the Afghan countryside.  Brave
men died fighting to protect their brothers and sisters in arms.  Other
deaths are senseless - a rolled HMMWV where the driver was driving too
fast and forgot to wear a seatbelt.

Today was a quiet one, thankfully.  The daily SIGACTs were mercifully
free of major incidents.  Things happen, of course, and there were
certainly some events to raise the eyebrows.  But no major casualties -
only one IED incident the whole day.  Hardly "All Quiet on the Western
Front," but as quiet as we're likely to see.  The hot and heavy work is
down south with the Marines, and likely to remain that way through the
summer, though it will heat up here, literally and figuratively, as we
get closer to the Afghan elections in late August.

I notice the lack of incidents, but if I'm honest with myself I've
become numb to the daily toll of casualties.  Each is a figure, another
number and statistic, an event to be analyzed to determine what we can
learn from and what we can do better.  You try to personalize, but you
can't, not without knowing the individual.  It's one part familiarity,
and one part professionalism - sixteen years of soldiering, even in at
best relative peace prepares you for a certain amount of this.

We did evac one of our own last week - SFC M came down with a virulent
stomach bug and had to be sent all the way back to Landstuhl in Germany
for treatment.  That hits closer to home.  So do the soldiers whose
faces I see out in the field.  I had an introduction to one just two
days ago while visiting with Task Force Mountain Warrior, as the unit
First Sergeant pointed to a picture on the wall - SPC Greg Missman,
F/704th BSB, KIA 9 JUL 09 - and begged me to fix something so that
another soldier won't die like Greg.  We'll do what we can, first
sergeant.

We've stopped doing Fallen Comrade ceremonies, too, which I think
contributes to the numbness.  It was more real when we
celebrated/mourned each of our heroes.  But we had a rocket attack after
one where two soldiers were killed, and everyone thinks the insurgents
planned the attack to try and hit the crowd lined up along Disney Boulevard.  So
we reduce risk, and there are no more big ceremonies, just the senior
leaders at the airfield to see our hero off.  I think we've lost
something there, and the insurgents won a bigger victory than they know.

I'm grateful for the distance I can have from what could otherwise be
disabling emotion.  Easier by far to just shrug about a statistic and go
about your business.  I lose something there, I know, a bit of humanity
I'll probably never miss but nevertheless makes me something less.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 9:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

I call my mechanic Ed. I don't call him Mr. Marcello -- and for good reason: That's not his name. His name is Ed Martello. Thanks to one of my many readers, Paul Purdum, for pointing out the error in spelling in my Wednesday column, which Mr. Purdum hated, of course, because he's not an Obama fan and, when you're not an Obama fan, you can't possibly see that anything his administration or the Democratic Congress does -- like Cash for Clunkers -- could possibly be any good.

Anyway, Ed Martello -- super guy, savvy mechanic, and he almost singlehandedly got to the bottom of the gas contamination problem that hit the Hereford Zone in June. Here's the WBAL-TV report.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

One of my many readers, Don Thomann, might be onto something here:

Is it me or does it seem that the reason some Republicans hate "Cash For Clunkers" is because IT'S WORKING and they can't stand the idea?  It’s been far too successful — dealers have been swamped, people are lining up to buy cars that burn less gas and bring instant cash to crippled local economies.
    Aahh, but Obama must fail, at least according to Republicans.  They will do ANYTHING to ensure that happens, the welfare of the rest of the country be damned.
    Not to mention (but I will) that big oil wants SOMETHING in return for all of the money they've been shoveling into campaign coffers over the years.
   

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:21 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)
        

TODAY ON THE RADIO 88.1 FM  LISTEN LIVE

James Q. Wilson, the more-conservative-than-most-academics-more-liberal-than-most-Americans professor of policy at Pepperdine (previously UCLA and Harvard), has written extensively on criminal justice and was a great influence on William Bratton, the former New York City (as of yesterday, former Los Angeles) police commissioner. Last year, in an op-ed for the Los Angeles Times, Wilson presented his answer to questions we explore on the Midday show today at noon:

Are too many Americans in prison? And, if we lead the world in per capita rate of incarceration, is that a bad thing? (According to a new report from the Sentencing Project, one in 11 American prisoners are serving life terms, and Maryland leads the nation in its proportion of African-Americans who are lifers.)

Wilson's answer: Americans are probably safer with more criminals behind bars, but public policy fails on two fronts -- preventing young men from becoming felons and helping old felons return to society without returning to prison.

"Even with prevention programs," Wilson wrote, "there will always be many people in prison. A major challenge for scholars today is to discover better ways of placing ex-inmates back into the community. If such methods can be devised, we can reduce the large number of parolees who are sent back to prison for violating the terms of their release. . . . But we should not suppose that, except for some minor drug offenders, we imprison too many people. There are still people who ought to be in prison and are not. There are more than 1 million felons on probation, in many cases because prisons are overcrowded . . . There are violent gang members who are hard to arrest and convict because their neighbors are afraid to go to the police or testify against them."

Interesting topic and debate.

You can tune in today, right after the NPR news at noon, to hear my conversation about this with with David Muhlhausen, a senior policy analyst at The Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. He is a crime and juvenile justice specialist and once served as a manager at a juvenile correctional facility in Baltimore. Also joining us: Curt Anderson, the Maryland state delegate who has tried to get his legislative colleagues to allow judges more discretion in sentencing the low-level drug offenders who take up too much space in our prisons and parole system.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Rick Larrick, the Duke business professor who has come up with a new formula for measuring fuel efficiency -- he looks at consumption, in gallons per 100 miles -- has posted an analysis of the results so far under cash for clunkers. With DOT reporting that clunkers traded in averaged 15.8 miles per gallon, compared with 25.4 miles per gallon for the new vehicles, here's a summary of Larrick's analysis:

Let's look at the gas savings created by replacing a fleet that has an average MPG of 15.8 with a fleet that has an average MPG of 25.4 using gallons per 100 miles:

100/15.8 = 6.33 gallons per 100 miles
100/25.4 = 3.94 gallons per 100 miles

That's a savings of 2.4 gallons per 100 miles. If we take into account a rebound effect (increased driver in new, efficient vehicles), that might reduce the net gas savings to roughly 2 gallons per 100 miles.

A gallon of gas releases about 20 pounds of carbon dioxide when burned.

Here's Larrick's complete post.

Here's a post that explains his formula, which is gaining acceptance in news and consumer media. Larrick is at a conference in Toronto this morning to present his mpg research and calculations.

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

To the nice folks who don't like the Red Line surface rail plan, the protesters from Edmondson Avenue on the west and Boston Street on the southeast, the ones who booed the governor's endorsement of the proposal yesterday: You live in a city. Get over it.

Most cities have decent mass transit operations. Go to Philly. Go to Boston. Go to San Francisco. Visit New York or Chicago. They have elevated trains, they have surface rail, they have subways; some never did away with their trolleys. A subway across Baltimore? I agree: That would be preferable, and the old guys with bowlers and big moustaches -- city fathers of the late 19th Century and early 20th Century -- should have built one. But they were a little distracted by fin-de-siecle celebrations and they ran out of money rebuilding downtown Baltimore after the Great Fire of 1904. So it didn't happen, and that's unfortunate. So we don't have a cross-town subway. We don't have a cross-town anything, except buses. More and more people need to be using mass transit, especially in the city. We should have a light rail line from North Charles Street to South Charles Street, too.

My column today is an endorsement of the government's cash for clunkers program, which gets gas guzzlers off the road and spurs sales in a recession. But, even with most drivers converting from trucks and SUVs to fuel-efficient cars, consider this humbling statistic from an Associated Press analysis: "America will be using nearly 72 million fewer gallons of gasoline a year because of the program, based on the first quarter-million vehicles replaced. U.S. drivers go through that amount of gas every 4 1/2 hours, according to the Department of Energy."

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 6:44 AM | Permalink | Comments (2)
        

David Tufaro, Baltimore developer, civic activist and sometimes Republican candidate, says I'm selfish for taking the Cash For Clunkers deal, as explained in today's column. He has all sorts of problems with the program and I guess he thinks I should have seen them, too, and just said no to $4,500 for my clunker. He also finds the program flawed because his daughter couldn't take advantage of it. You can read Tufaro's comments below. I'll just add this: Any developer who's been successful must have, at some point, received some kind of tax break from governmment. I doubt Mr. Tufaro just said no to governmemt-backed incentives or benefits on his various projects -- Montgomery Park, for instance, where his biggest tenant is still a government agency. (Montgomery Park is also located in an Enterprise Zone, an Empowerment Zone, and a Revitalization Area of Baltimore City -- read that, tax break!)

Anyway, here's Tufaro's letter:

First, any program or policy when driven by selected goals is likely to have important adverse affects.  This program is no exception.  It is driven by the twin goals of supposedly helping the environment and pushing new car sales.

Second, the $4,500 taxpyer subsidy is only available for a new car.   You obviously could afford a new car.  But isn't that really selfish?  Many other people would like to get the subsidy too, but cannot afford a new car.  My youngest daughter just graduated from college.  She just started working for CASH in Baltimore, through the Americorps program.   We went shopping with her last week for a used car, and on Saturday she bought, with our assistance, a 2000 Honda Civic with 129,000 miles for $6,000.  Her transaction did not qualify for the subisdy because she was buying a used car.  The people who are being helped by the subisdy are by and large those with higher than average incomes.  The rest are left out.

Third, what about the person who needs to replace their 20 year old refrigerator, or washing machine?   They cannot avail themselves of the taxpayer subsidy.

Fourth, the Maryland emissions testing program is another program that allegedly in the name of the holy grail of the environment at all costs, directly adversely affects the lowest income segments of our state.  If your 10 year old clunker fails the emissions test, and lots of poor people and elderly have such cars, and your car is worth $500 or $1000 dollars, you may have to pay $300 to $500 to get it fixed to try to pass the test.  If it doesn' pass the test after that expense, you get a waiver.  So the environment is no better off, and the poor sucker has had to lay out $500.  That is called a "lose/lose" proposition, not a "win/win".  I would also love to see an accurate cost/benefit study of the reduction in emissions resulting from the emissions tests and the costs of the program including what the car owner pays in testing fees, time and gas mileage.  Don't we have a right to know that?

Fifth, it is positively crazy to reduce the clunkers to junk.  I have donated around 4 old cars to charities - the Boy Scouts and The Salvation Army.  

Sixth,  I do not necessarily agree with your conclusion that the program has been successful.  I have read that that is not the case.  Some have said that new car sales had already started to increase.

Thoughts from a thoughtful and responsible conservative.

David F. Tufaro
Terra Nova Ventures, LLC
1817 Thames Street
Baltimore, Maryland 21231
(410) 327-3200
(410) 327-3262 fax
www.terranovaventures.com

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 3:29 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)
        

Here's some reaction to today's column, in which I reveal my good fortune to be involved in a cash-for-clunker deal that got me into a new car I had delayed buying, as a replacement for a minivan with more than 200,000 miles. I think these people just wish they had gotten the deal -- or that the vehicles they're driving could qualify. (Hee-hee)

I am happy you got a new car.  The only problem is that the money you got was from the taxes I have to pay.  I also have problems with AIG, etc. getting all that tax money.  Remember the government makes no money, except what they take from the working American people.   My brother-in-law traded in his clunker and go the same deal as you, the only problem I find with that, is the son of bitch is a multi millionaire and could finance cars for 50 of us and not feel the loss.  He is gloating like a a kid who found ten dollars on the street. Sort of makes me ill..   
-- Christian

I'm glad that you "don't ... feel guilty about taking the government's money," but I cringe whenever I read about or hear references to the "government's money."  There is no such thing as the "government's money."  That money is yours and mine and everyone else who pays taxes. -- Bob Price

I think that you can afford to buy your own car and don't need the US taxpayer to subsidize your purchase. If you were some poor schmuck with no job or little money that would be one thing but you are not that guy. What you did is no better than the fellow on the street corner with his hand out looking for something for nothing. And by the way it isn't the governments money its our money. Think about it.
--jqmay

I think the govt program was intended for people who were using their clunkers with bad mileage and possibly lousy emissions systems as their primary vehicle.  I don't get how you rationalize taking a public money hand-out for your non-crisis situation, and promoting it and possibly encouraging other people not driving their mothballed clunkers to follow you. The program should have been designed along the lines of first time home buyers' incentives, not for people who are buying summer home-type vehicles.  Just because you were able to use the system does not mean you should.
-- Dorothy in Baltimore

Wow!!!!! You got $4,500 for a vehicle that you clearly admit was worthless.
You seem proud. You justify your actions by saying the investment will return dividends speaks to your total lack of understanding basic economic principles.
I am certain that a first time reader (who has some reasoning skills) may think you are just kidding. I know better. DAN --NEWS FLASH --IT IS CALLED STEALING!!!!!
Jim Ward

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 2:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)
        

TODAY ON THE RADIO    88.1 FM  WYPR

1:00-2:00 pm Eastern: My guest this hour is Gary Marcus, Baltimore native (and graduate of the city public schools), college professor, unicyclist and author of Kluge: the Haphazard Construction of the Human Mind. Marcus says that the mind is not elegantly designed but rather a "kluge," (rhymes with stooge) a clumsy, cobbled-together contraption, and sheds light on some of the most mysterious aspects of human nature. Marcus has 13 suggestions for how we can adapt and make our kluge function better and maybe even live a happier life. An award-winning professor of psychology at New York University and director of the NYU Center for Child Language, Marcus has written three books about the origins and nature of the human mind. He is also the editor of The Norton Psychology Reader, and the author of numerous science publications in leading journals, such as Science, Nature, Cognition, and Psychological Science.  Listen on-line

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:39 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

TODAY ON THE RADIO    88.1 FM  WYPR

Noon-1:00 pm Easterm:  In order to study police socialization for his Harvard Ph.D., Peter Moskos became a cop and spent a year working in Baltimore’s Eastern District, the city's most violent and the focus of new attention because of July's multiple shootings. Moskos wrote a book about his experience: Cop in the Hood: My Year Policing Baltimore's Eastern District. He joins me in Studio A to discuss his experiences. Moskos is assistant professor of law, police science and criminal justice administration at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and at the City University of New York's Doctoral Program in Sociology. This is a rebroadcast of a conversation from August of last year. Listen on-line

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 7:25 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)
        

Rick Larrick, a professor of management at Duke's Fuqua School of Business, provides an interesting (and more accurate) perspective on assessing gas mileage in motor vehicles, particularly in light of the government's cash-for-clunkers program -- and the criticism, leveled by some leading Democrats in the Senate, that it rewarded gains in fuel efficiency too small to make a difference.

Larrick wrote in reaction to my recent column on fuel efficiency and the need for consumers to make that their priority when they shop for new vehicles.

I agree with you about mpg, and wanted to point out that mpg math disguises the real inefficiency of 13 mpg Suvs.  It’s worse than you think. The better way to look at fuel efficiency is with gas consumption, such as gallons per 100 miles.  Here’s some comparisons:

10 mpg = 10 gallons per 100 miles

11 mpg = 9 gallons

12.5 mpg = 8 gallons

14 mpg = 7 gallons

16.5 mpg  = 6 gallons

20 mpg = 5 gallons

25 mpg = 4 gallons

33 mpg = 3 gallons

50 mpg = 2 gallons

Getting one 14 mpg car off the road in favor of a 25 mpg car saves more gas (3 gallons per 100 miles) than any possible replacement for a 33 mpg vehicle.

Here’s an interesting puzzle.  Imagine two people with cars that average 14 mpg.  Imagine one is going to upgrade to a more efficient car.  How big does the mpg improvement need to be so that the new average for the two people is 25 mpg? Intuitively, it seems like trading in one 14 mpg car for one that’s about 36 or so should do it.  But a 14 mpg and 36 mpg car use a total of roughly 7+3=10 gallons per 100 miles, which is an average of 5 gphm per vehicle.  That yields an average mpg of 100/5 = 20 mpg. The “gallons per 100 miles” math shows that even improving one car in this example to 50 mpg does not yield a final average at 25 mpg.  If you have a 14 mpg car and a 50 mpg car, they use 7+2=9 gallons per 100 miles, which is an average of 4.5 gphm, and an average mpg of 100/4.5 = 22 mpg! 

The moral of the story:  The urgency for the country is in removing the most inefficient cars. The puzzle about the mpg improvement shows that even a 50 mpg car can do little to offset the gas consumption of a 14 mpg car.  A 50 mpg car and a 14 mpg car still average out close to 22 mpg.  The national policy implication:  Improving the low mpg cars by even a seemingly small amount is where the main gas savings are possible.

I published a paper in Science a year showing that mpg causes illusions (because gas consumption and gas savings are not a one-to-one function of mpg); gallons per hundred miles fixes these illusions.

I also have two non-commercial websites where I make the case for thinking in terms of gallons per 100 miles (recently adopted by USA Today and by Popular Mechanics):

www.mpgillusion.com

www.gpmcalculator.com

Rick Larrick
Professor of Management
Duke University
Research webpage: http://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~larrick/bio/

LISTEN TO MY INTERVIEW WITH LARRICK ON MIDDAY JULY 27 

 

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 5:57 AM | Permalink | Comments (11)
        

Did you do a cash-for-clunker deal? Are you bidding adieu to a minivan -- the one you transported your kids around in for god-almighty-a-gazillion miles and a zillion soccer games? Are you finally giving up the SUV for something called a car, that thing with . . . with . . . a trunk!?

Are you feeling sentimental about the minivan -- any attachment to it at all? Or was it time for that phase of your life to end anyway? Is cash-for-clunkers providing you with a long-delayed mid-life crisis ride?

Have you finally decided that you can do without the SUV? Moving to something smaller, maybe even . .  compact?

Send your sentiments here and we'll post them, and we're all comiserate.

Posted by Dan Rodricks at 10:54 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)