Three about Boris Johnson

For US readers, Boris Johnson is the bike riding mayor of London. I'll freely admit that I don't know much else about the man, although he does get some discussion on "Politics Weekly", the Guardian weekly (natch) political podcast. I noticed that I had saved a couple of different stories about Mr. Johnson and since I'm not in a position to write extensively about any of them, here they are all at once.

Boris Johnson unveils blueprint for London's 'cycling revolution' - article outlines the mayor's announcement of a bike share program for London with an aim of 6000 bikes at 400 stations about 300 meters apart. Quote the Mayor:

"Much like hailing a cab, people will be able to pick up one of 6,000 bikes, and zip around town to their heart's content – not only a quick, easy, and healthy option, but one that will also make London a more liveable city."

Boris Johnson's 'near-death experience' with lorry caught on camera - a disconcerting article describing how a ride intended to show the transport minister and a deputy some sites for bike "super highways" the Mayor hopes to bring to London almost came to a catastrophic end. From the article:

In what is being described as the mayor's "near-death experience", the lorry's back door then suddenly flew open, dragged a parked car into the street and smashed into another – just feet from Johnson, Adonis and Ranger.

Most of it was caught on CCTV, and the article ends with an aide to Mr. Johnson making the incident an argument for the bikeways he (Johnson) is pushing for.

Bike registration revisited

A few weeks back I did a little ranting about bike and cyclist registration. Short version - I'm not a huge fan of either tagging bikes or requiring cyclist licensing, but can see some justification for both. After that post went up I had a short email exchange with a commenter, Bunny, on the value of putting police-readable identification on bikes and I have to admit that I had ignored a specific segment of the community.

Bunny's initial comment:

If you were in NYC and had heart stopping experiences with bikers going through red lights, against traffic and on the sidewalk you might think differently. They should have a license so they can be identified and fined for not following the rules of the road.

My response was a little too flip, basically a rehash of some of my earlier arguments which boil down to the idea that most of those cyclists wouldn't bother to register/tag their bikes. My dislike for licensing and registration schemes of most types stems from my dislike of governmental intrusion into my life, and in this case I looked at the issue only from my perspective. I am a vehicular cyclist and I follow the rules of the road. Because I follow existing rules I don't see why I should have to put up with additional restrictions/regulations. Thinking about it after reading Bunny's comments and emails brought something else to mind:

Cars have to have plates on them, so requiring the same from cyclists isn't adding restrictions, it's bringing cyclists into greater parity with motor vehicles.

This is something I need to think about a little more, but at the minimum I am willing to recognize that I was wrong about bike licensing, and in some jurisdictions (those with large populations of scofflaw cyclists) putting plates on bikes might be a legitimate way to discourage inappropriate behavior.

Integrating bikes into American transport

The last few Friday's I've discussed some political/activist subjects, specifically licensing and helmet use. I'm going to keep that trend going with a couple of related bits on integrating bikes into the transport system in America.

First, is this bit from BRAIN from a few weeks back:

NEW YORK, NY (BRAIN)—It seems that New York City may only be bike friendly to a point.
 On his weekly radio program on Friday morning, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg said he opposed allowing commuters to bring bicycles onto subway cars, even if the Metropolitan Transportation Authority permits it.
 “I know bicyclists will now ring the phones off the hook, but they are just too big, particularly at rush hour,” he said of the bikes. “I just don’t think they should allow it,” he added.

The full story is from the NYT, available here. Reading the full article, it turns out that the mayor was responding to a caller's question so to some extent he was extemporizing, but the result is the same as if it were a prepared statement. 

These feelings aren't restricted to either Mayor Bloomberg (a staunch advocate of mass transit) or New York. Most places where you find light rail or subways and cyclists you find conflict. Yes, bikes are large and take up space, but does that really mean they should be blocked from use? I'm a regular BART rider, with and without my bike (a largish Surly Long Haul Trucker). BART has specific times, peak commute, where bikes aren't supposed to be on cars and they ask cyclists to use judgement before boarding. I would really like to see BART take a more cycling-friendly stance and provide more space specifically for bikes, but for now the benign indifference is alright. As long as our work/live situation remains the way it is (live in suburbs, work in cities) many people will need to travel farther than is easy by bike, and that mean multi-mode. As long as people are traveling multi-mode, they need to be able to bring their bikes with them.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The other piece I saw was on the East Bay Bike Coalition blog a couple of weeks back. This one was discussing Federal "complete streets" legislation. Specifically:

H.R. 1443: Complete Streets Act of 2009 Introduced Mar 11, 2009
S. 584: A bill to ensure that all users of the transportation system, including pedestrians, bicyclists, transit users, children, older individuals, and individuals with disabilities, are able to travel safely and conveniently on and across federally funded streets and highways. Introduced Mar 12, 2009.

Much like the Routine Accommodation policy adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in 2006, and the Complete Streets bill signed into California State Law in 2008, the national version will work to make certain that federal transportation dollars are not spent to build new barriers or daunting hazards for bicyclists.

This is one of those issues where I like the idea but not necessarily the execution. Transportation spending is a state issue, and this kind of action by the Federal government is referred to as "power of the purse" - using Federal funding to force the states to do something (aka "Do it my way or watch your butt.") As a small government person, this sort of side-stepping around separation of powers bothers me. On the other hand, there are likely some states that won't do the right thing by cyclists and other non-vehicular traffic without the Federal carrot/stick. 

So what is the right answer? I can't say. I for one won't be involved in pushing the issue forward, but unlike the other political issues I've talked about recently I'm not entirely opposed.

Helmets

Over the last few weeks I've seen a few different pieces on bike helmets in the blogs and newsfeeds I follow. Some, like this picture/post from Fritz are on the more humourous side:

and some, like pieces related to the accident, head injury, and unfortunate death of Natasha Richardson (there has been some discussion that the injury could have been lessened or prevented if she'd been wearing a helmet) are more serious. A third, also UK related, is from a recent High Court case:

Many cyclists were seriously concerned when a High Court Judge recently remarked that cyclists who suffer head injuries when not wearing a helmet may not be entitled to full compensation if it can be shown that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries. After all, it is not compulsory to wear a helmet whilst cycling and there is no clear or conclusive evidence to support the view that compulsory wearing would either advance the cause of cycling, or necessarily improve cyclists’ safety on the road.

As I said, all of this got me thinking. Granted, helmets are one of the taboos of cycling blogs, and discussing their use is enough to start flame wars on even the most well-moderated forums, but I'm going to wade into those waters anyway. As in last week's post on licensing, I'll discuss the reasons I see for government action on helmets, and then give my opinions on each.

There are two major arguments that are used to justify helmet laws, whether for bicycles or motorcycles: protecting the riders and protecting the system. (In this case I am using "system" to cover everything and everyone involved in providing medical care to an injured rider who is uninsured and otherwise unable to pay for their own medical care.) Both of these are the same reasoning that led to mandatory seat belt use laws. The first derives from the belief that the government has a role in protecting us from our selves, and the second derives from the fact that there are more than a few people in the US who are unable to pay for their own medical care, meaning that it falls to uninvolved people (the taxpayers) to pick up the tab.

The first argument is one I have issues with. I don't believe that the government has a role in protecting me from my own choices. If I want to ride without a helmet it's on me. In fact, I agree with the High Court case mentioned above, and I've felt that was the better approach for a long time. Don't want to wear a helmet or seat belt? Fine, your insurance can then pay out less if your injuries are aggravated by your actions. It's the same thing that happens with drivers' insurance - you drive like a twit (as in, you get pulled over a lot, demonstrated poor behavior) your rates go up. That's called negative reinforcement and it's a great way to teach people not to do dumb things.

The other argument is a tougher one. I'm a taxpayer and that means that I'm partially liable (a wee tiny bit) when uninsured people are injured. To minimize that liability, I like the idea of requiring people to be safe. The question is - how far do you take it? Helmets on bikes make you safer than not, but then what about helmets in cars? or helmets for skiers? It rapidly becomes a slippery-slope argument, which makes me uncomfortable.

All in all, I agree with encouraging helmet use but not mandating it. Unlike a lot of cyclists, this extends to children. Parents should (and I would if I had kids) require their kids to use helmets, but I disagree with the government stepping in to force the issue.

A great way to look at it comes from the WashCycle, a blog covering cycling issues in Washington DC:

Wearing a helmet is like wearing sun screen. It protects you and only you from something harmful. Except unlike helmets, the efficacy of sun screen is not in question. And it helps you without some bizarre occurrence. The financial benefits of everyone wearing sun screen is probably higher than for wearing helmets. The same could be said of condoms. But, I don't hear anyone talking of mandating the wearing of either the way this article seems to encourage mandating helmet use.

Bike registration, cyclist licensing

Updated 3/28 - added a few more in-text links to articles about licensing

A little while back the Bicycle Retailer and Industry News blog (BRAIN) had a piece on an effort in Oregon to get a bike licensing bill passed. The article was written primarily on the impact the bill would/not have on retailers and the general feeling was that it didn't have a huge chance of getting passed. From the post:

“The word I have is that the chair of House Transportation does not intend to schedule it for a hearing, so it is dead,” [Karl Rohde, government relations and public affairs director of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance (BTA)] said. “But we'll continue to monitor it though, in case it comes back from the dead.”

The piece does include the concerns that BTA has with the bill, specifically:

(f)or its part, the BTA opposes the bill stating that net revenue would not contribute significantly to the construction and maintenance of roads and ancillary facilities, and the cost of registration would discourage bicycling.

All of this, and some other posts I've seen floating around lately, has got me thinking about the validity of bike licenses.

My first thought is that there needs to be a good reason for licenses if you're going to require them. This is mainly my small government mindset speaking, but it's also common sense. Too often the reason given for requiring bike licenses is the "cyclists don't pay their fair share of road maintenance" argument (debunked and debated at the preceding links). Accepting this argument as valid (which I emphatically DO NOT) the appropriate response would be to just add a tax at the time of purchase of a new bike or other cycling equipment. Requiring licensing just for the fees generated makes little sense.

Drivers are licensed twice, once as an individual and once for their vehicle. In the first case, the license is supposed to ensure that the driver has gone through a state-approved course of education, or at the very least has demonstrated through testing knowledge equivalent to having completed the training. In the second case the vehicle license is to ensure that there is an accurate record of the vehicle (used when the driver violates the law) and that the vehicle passed certain safety/emissions testing. Do these same criteria hold up for cyclists?

• Individual licensing - I think there is some validity to having cyclists go through a specific course of education and be "certified", especially for cyclists in urban areas. If there were a recognized cyclist license, it could potentially ease some of the scofflaw-cyclist hatred, or at the very least provide riders with a ready response to that line of argument.

• Bike licensing - Unlike with motor vehicles, an unsafe bike is rarely (if ever) a threat to anyone other than the rider. Additionally, there are a number of existing private ways to get a bike "licensed" for theft-recovery purposes (identifying the bike). Licensing bikes for the purpose of catching lawbreakers strikes me as something that would require far more time, effort, and money than it would ever recoup in terms of tickets or deterrence.

So what does this all lead to? In my opinion there is some justification for licensing cyclists, if the goal is to integrate cyclists into the larger pool of road users. Licensing bikes makes no sense to me, although that seems to be the favored model of politicians. I will say that I'd rather see programs like those offered by the League of American Bicyclists expanded as a de facto standard rather than something coming down from either state or Federal government, but I don't know if that will carry the same weight with non-cyclists as something that is government sanctioned.

Political Friday: Bailouts and car companies

Because I get pedantic when it comes to politics I'm going to avoid politics except on Fridays. With the upcoming administration change, not to mention the bailout  (today's topic) I have no doubt there will be a lot to rant about. Hopefully, keeping politics confined to one day a week will keep me brief.

Anyone who has been watching the news lately knows that we, the American public, just got sucked into a gigantic "investment" in various failing companies. If my language doesn't make it obvious, I think this is a bad idea. It is not well thought-out, with Treasury Dept officials admitting that the $700 billion number was pulled from thin air ("It's not based on any particular data point," a Treasury spokeswoman told Forbes.com Tuesday. "We just wanted to choose a really large number.") Now, the American auto industry is crawling into DC to ask for money, and it looks like they're going to get it. The "Big Three" are failing because they chose to invest in a dead end - SUVs - and not fuel-saving technologies like hybrids. They are now regretting that and for some reason think that the people who have chosen to not buy their cars (the tax payers) should pay for their retooling. 

Rewarding the Big Three for their poor choice of direction (bigger = better) isn't good for anyone. Not to be too unsympathetic, but companies sometimes fail in a capitalist economy, that's part of the risk. The advantage is that when companies fail their competitors (in this case, the companies that invested in smaller, fuel-efficient and/or hybrid cars) will be able to expand into a larger section of the market, hiring many of the workers and potentially buying up the manufacturing facilities. Then we, the consumers, can buy the best products. OK, enough econ for one day.

Ghost Rider hit on this same topic over at Bike Commuters.

While I was away

While I was away there was some big news for cyclists. It was covered by just about every cycling-related blog I read, including:

• Bicycle Commuters
• Bikes Belong
• Bike Commute Tips Blog - two times
• Bike Hacks
• CycleDog
• Cycelicious
• Freewheeling Spirit
• Urban Velo
• The Velo ORANGE Blog
• The Wash Cycle

So what was it that got all of these fellow-travelers off their bikes and onto their keyboards? The inclusion of the Bicycle Commuter Act as part of the gigantic outpouring of taxpayer money for the financial industry.

From the San Jose Mercury News (by way of Paul Dorn's blog):

Effective Jan. 1, people who use bicycles as their primary means of getting to work will be eligible to get up to $20 a month in tax-free payments from their employers for the costs of owning and operating a bike. Employers can deduct the payments as an expense from their federal taxes.

As a cyclist, I think this is a good thing. Not because $20.00 per month is really going to make a big difference, but because it puts bike commuters on equal footing as other commuters, if only in the eyes of the IRS (but really, is there a stronger indicator of reality than the IRS?). However, I have a couple of problems with the way it went down.

First - This is just one more piece of pork tossed into a bad piece of legislation to bribe (yeah, I'll say it) reticent members to vote for it. The leadership knew that they weren't going to get the votes they needed, so they added superfluous amendments like this one to get more people on board. That rubs me the wrong way. If the bail out was so important, why weren't more members willing to support it on its own merits? If bike commuters deserve equal treatment at the hands of the tax code, why couldn't the Act pass on its own merits. The obvious answer to both questions is that there wasn't enough support for either on its own, and only by pooling the supporters of two flawed pieces of legislation those supporters able to get them passed.

Second - I know I'm committing bike blogger sacrilege by questioning the need for laws relating to cyclists, specifically benefits for cyclists. The line of argument that a lot of advocates have made is that other commuters can get pre-tax money to buy mass-transit tickets, and cycling serves the same "greater good" by removing people from cars, so cyclists should be able to get the same pre-tax benefit to offset some of the affiliated costs. My concern is that this is demonstrating one of the worst characteristics of federal laws - unnecessary complication. There is a reason that the index for the 2008 Code of Federal Regulations is over 1,000 pages long. Rather than adding a new law for bike commuters, wouldn't it be better to remove things from the old law, specifically the parts that indicate the means of commuting? The whole idea is to allow commuters to use pre-tax money to pay their expenses, is there some reason that this should only apply to certain types of commuters, and if so, why?

All things being equal, it is a victory for cyclists that this has passed. Personally, I have reservations about the way it happened, but that's just me.

Surprisingly, the government gets worse

The new plan? Gas stamps. Think food stamps for your car and you have the right idea.

Gas stamps would work like traditional food stamps, which some Americans have collected since the 1930s. They would be used, however, to pay for regular unleaded instead of meat and potatoes.

Under one version of the proposal, a person earning up to $31,200 or a family of four earning up to $63,600 could receive government payments totaling $500 for gas.

Because the only way that any of us can get anywhere is by driving a family car. Somehow, the congresscritters in favor of the idea (Dems trying to shore up their appeal in the heartland based on the article) are comparing the pricey gas we have now to the war-imposed gas rationing from WWII, when you were only allowed a little at a time and had the stamps to allow you to buy more.

The idea for fuel stamps was first proposed by maverick Rep. Jim McDermott (D-Wash.), chairman of the House Income Security and Family Support subcommittee, who remembers his family using gas stamps when he was a boy during World War II.

“If you had to drive to work, you got to buy more gasoline than if you just drove your car on the weekends,” he said of the wartime policy.

Who knows how much time and eventually money will be blown on this. Making gas appear to be cheaper (and it will only be on the surface, after all, it will take higher taxes to provide a new service) does nothing to resolve the real problems. On the other side of the aisle are the GOP members claiming that opening offshore drilling will take care of everything. Again, at best this will add a fractional amount of new crude to what we already use and will not fix the systemic problems.

Is biking more the solution for everyone? No, but added to public transit and walking it would reduce the demand within the US to the point that prices would come down. Beyond that, people need to make it clear to manufacturers that they want cars that go farther per gallon and are willing to pay for them. None of this requires government action, it requires lazy-@$$ Americans to do something, which means it won't happen.

Bike freedom

When I decided to stop annoying my friends with bike-related nonsense and start a blog I chose "Liberation Cycling" because it captures a number of things about me. I realized that I never really fulfilled a semi-promise from my first post, which was to explain the name, and since I've been thinking about it recently, why not?

This week I've had to drive to work. Yesterday specifically drove home the freedom that you lose driving (when you should/could be riding). I got stuck on a road where a delivery truck for a construction site had blocked off one of the two lanes of a major commute-direction street. This led to a significant back-up stretching through two lights. As I sat there all I could think about was that I could be dodging the whole thing on my bike. The freedom of cycling.

Another aspect of it for me is the clarity of mind that develops, primarily on longer rides, when you can settle into a cadence and ride. No shifting, little effort, just riding. I miss that here, since there aren't easy places to take longer rides that aren't crowded MUPs, and can't wait to get back to CA and have the backroads I know available practically at my door.

The last aspect of liberation that I get from a bike, or at least the last significant one, is the freedom of movement. Not just freedom in commuting, discussed above, but true freedom of movement. Bikes allow you to go anywhere, and with a little preparation (or a high-limit credit card) you can go everywhere. Getting around town is easier on a bike, taking a vacation (touring) isn't necessarily easier, but it is certainly more open to changes of whim. There are very few barriers that can stop a person with a bike.

Those are a few of the ways I see bikes as liberating. There may be others for you, and there are some other, smaller ones for me.

Random, but fantastic, bike-related political quote

I've mentioned my politics before, so there's no reason to beat you over the head with them again. This morning, as I was reading my feeds and getting caught up on what the world did while I was asleep, I came across this line:

Yes, that's the problem: It's not that Palin's record as a reformer has proven as durable as an oragami mountain bike.

(emphasis mine)

That was quoted from the reason magazine Hit & Run blog, in an article written by David Weigel about Sarah Palin. The whole post is available here.

Stepping back from the politics, I think that's at once the greatest political use of a bike in a non-bike-related discussion, and just a fantastic metaphor, one I plan on using often.

Sprawl reversing?

This is a post that falls somewhere in between cycling and politics, as will become clear as it progresses. I have to go out and check on my touring bike this afternoon, so I drove to work. On the way I heard this story on NPR, discussing what looks like a movement away from sprawl. The short version is that homes with a shorter commute distance have seen less of a decrease (and in some cases and increase) in price during the current housing market melt-down. One of the reasons that is mentioned in the piece is the idea that people are beginning to weigh the "costs" associated with a 1-2 hour commute (one way) more heavily.

The story doesn't specifically mention if the costs are the literal costs (fuel, vehicle maintenance) or philosophical (environment, time away from family) or a mix. I tend to think it's a mix. I know that when I finished school and took my current job I made a firm decision that I would not live too far away to bike to work. (Unfortunately that meant I would be living in Baltimore, because I don't like multi-modal commuting any more than long drive commuting, but that's me being picky.)

What I do find interesting is that this movement back into cities is happening without the cities first being redeveloped. There is a long running desire in sustainable living circles to remake cities, cut down on vehicle space, increase walking/biking space, add public transit, that sort of thing. In general I agree with these things but feel strongly that they will only be successful if they are done by demand rather than imposed. (See any number of anti-light rail arguments for the reasons light rail and other mass transit projects are often not cost-effective.)

What I see in this story (assuming it represents a true trend and not a short-term isolated incident) is that demand may soon come. The combination of desiring more family/recreation time and rising costs of fuel are making long commutes unattractive. That, in turn, will cause former suburbanites to reverse the trend of "drive until you can afford" that has been the mantra for the last 20+ years, and head back in to the cities where they work. That movement may lead to improvements in infrastructure, schools, and other things that fell into disrepair as a result of the tax base moving out of the cities.

Another, final, though. I do not doubt that the middle class families moving back into the cities will want some of the quality of life things (parks, playgrounds, good schools) that they had in the suburbs. Maybe, just maybe, this is the time to really look at how cities are organized and make some smart, sustainable changes to them.

Libertarians and global warming

As you may be able to tell from the title (and the fact that I'm putting this up only a few minutes after a commuting post) this is a political rant. The global warming side of things does relate (slightly) to cycling though.

I fail to understand the massive opposition to the concept of climate change/global warming that persists in a lot of libertarian circles. The opposition to government mandated action on the problem I understand, that runs counter to the central core of libertarian philosophy. What I am talking about is the oft-repeated antipathy towards the idea that human may just have screwed the planet up a wee bit, and that it might be a good idea to do something about it. The most prominent person in this camp used to be Ronald Bailey, the science writer for reason. Recently though he came out as being open to the idea of man-made climate change (here for the full "saga" as he calls it). I have always felt that Bailey at least was arguing based on the science - he did not see specific scientific evidence that convinced him that human action had led to climate change, or that convinced him that the "changes" people were pointing to weren't part of a larger cycle. Fine, if you disagree with the science that's what debate and discussion is for.

What I take issue with is the trend in many libertarian circles to simply deride the idea of man-made climate change. This isn't debating on the merits, just slamming the side you don't agree with. It reminds me of the way Christopher Hitchens is when he writes about religion, muddying argument with insult. If you are going to argue against something give me a reason to think you have some substance. Otherwise you're just doing a Kerry - my own pejorative based on John Kerry's half-assed run for president where he did not once give a reason why voters should pick him, and instead based his whole campaign on reasons to not vote for Bush.

Politics, III

My upper arm is killing me, and the bruise from the door Monday is coming in nicely. Added to that is a light rain and the fact that I'll probably be pulling another 11+ hour day in the office, so no riding. Not riding (2 days, will be three because of meetings tomorrow) makes me cranky, and being cranky and reading bad political coverage makes me rant.

I would expect that writers, even blog writers, from the Wall Street Journal, would take care to make sure they are accurate with the way they use their words. Then again, this post from the "Washington Wire" blog (March 18, 2008) seems to indicate otherwise. The post is about the possible future of the MI and FL revotes, with the main coverage being to claims from Harold Ikes that the Obama team is dragging their heels over MI and that FL would be able to run the revote if they really tried. At the end of the third paragraph it says: "Clinton won both primaries but the states were stripped of their convention votes after holding primaries earlier than the party allowed."

That statement is just wrong. The states were told, before they voted, that they would not have representation at the convention if they stuck to the early primary dates. Because of this all of the major Democratic candidates except Clinton took their names off of the MI ballot, and all candidates agreed to not campaign in FL. Clinton took 55% of the vote in a state (MI) where the other major contestant was "none of the above".

To say the states were stripped after the primary makes it sound like it was a surprise attack by the DNC. Now I have no dog in the fight and I think the DNC must do something to include the voters of MI and FL or risk losing support in the fall. My issue here is with writing that, either intentionally or not, will mislead readers who weren't paying attention months ago when the decision to strip the delegates first occurred. Sloppy reporting can never be tolerated.

More politics

After just ranting about the Dem primary a day or so ago, both camps go and do something that makes me want to rant again. I promise, this should not be taken as an indication that I'm getting away from cycling content, I just haven't managed to get on the bike for a little while and I'm bombarded with political news constantly because of work.

First - the Clinton camp. The current line of argument coming from the Clinton team, primarily from Prez Clinton, is that Obama would make a great VP to Hillary's P. There are so many things wrong with this line of thought that I have a hard time getting started. I'll hit the two biggest, and leave it there. First, is the answer that Obama is using, namely that he is ahead in the pledged delegate count, the popular vote and the number of state contests won, so why would he even think about taking the VP slot. There really is no need to get deeper into it. He's winning, not her, so if there is going to be any talk about a combo ticket (which is a BAD idea in my opinion, not a dream) it should be the other way around. The other problem with the "Obama as Veep" argument is that he is too politically ambitious to be Clinton's VP. What does ambition have to do with it? That's easy. Ordinarily the VP is the Number 2, in a Clinton White House the VP will be Number 3. Does anybody really believe that Bill won't be involved in a lot of the traditional VP roles? About all Obama (or anyone else in the Veep job) would have to look forward to is running the Senate.

Now the Obama camp screw-up. This one I just caught because I'm about a day behind in my news reading, but an Obama supporter (I think it was Dodd) is suggesting an even split of the MI/FL delegates. My last political post was on the nightmare that including those voters fairly will be, and this ain't it. An even split of the delegates does nothing to acknowledge the voters of those states. In fact, it essentially ignores them. The whole point of "collecting" delegates is to gain an advantage over your opponent, either in a specific state or in total. Splitting the delegates in half benefits nobody and is a horrible idea. It doesn't benefit the candidates, because the difference between them remains the same. Without MI and FL in the contest, the magic number is reduced and it is possible one might reach it (I don't have the figures in front of me), adding them back in makes it very unlikely that either candidate will win, unless the two states are added in and allowed to vote. It also does nothing to re-enfranchise the voters, because their wishes aren't even being give a token nod. MI and FL either need to be given the opportunity to revote (with the DNC helping to defray the cost) or they need to be decertified, as was the original statement, because the state party bosses chose to violate the will of the DNC.

Political update

A little while back I did a straight political post expressing my hope that both parties' primary races would result in brokered conventions. I stated that the likelihood of it happening for the Reps was pretty high, and less so for the Dems. Boy was I wrong.

McCain has wrapped it up for the Reps, and even a couple of weeks back it became pretty clear that he had it. Huckabee held on for a little while, past the point where he could have possibly expected to win, and it's over now. The Dems have settled into a two person battle that looks like it will go the distance, more out of ego and stubbornness than anything else, with the media egging it on.

Why do I say that? Well, the results of the March 4 primaries were almost perfectly split, with neither candidate gaining any ground. I think the final tally was a net gain by Clinton of 7 pledged delegates. And yet, the same outlets who were saying her campaign was dead and that she needed to get out, for the good of the Party, are now saying that she's regained command of the race.

With 7 delegates?

The big issue the Dems have to deal with now is how to treat Michigan and Florida fairly. The states moved their primaries/caucuses to a point on the calendar that had been tagged off-limits by the DNC, and so they were stripped of their delegates to the convention. Clinton was the only major candidate on the ballot in MI (both Obama and Edwards removed themselves) so she took a good chunk of the votes, and nobody "actively" campaigned in FL, with Clinton again winning the state. Obviously, the Clinton camp has a lot to gain by seating the delegates as pledged, and the Obama camp has incentive to block that. The trick for Obama is going to be arguing to redistribute those delegates in a fair (to his mind) way while not seeming to go counter to the "wishes" of the voters.

Glad I'm not the one having to set it up.

Narrowing the field

In the last post I put up about the presidential race I indicated my hope that both parties would result in brokered conventions. There are a few different reasons I'd like to see the races go to the conventions without actually selecting the nominees, and I'll get into them below. Unfortunately, it looks pretty unlikely at this point. The Dems are down to the two rockstars, with bublegum popstar Edwards pulling out. On the Rep side, Rudy's great "late state" strategy fizzled and that race is becoming more and more about McCain and Romney.

Could they still hit the conventions split? Certainly. Edwards and Richardson are being actively courted for their support, and they could bring enough to one side or the other to keep the two Dems from reaching the magic number. On the other side, Huckabee it still in it, as is Paul, and while neither of them is drawing large voting blocks they could serve as spoilers and keep the total votes down. Alternatively, if Huckabee were to pull out and throw his support to Romney it might lead to a split between the religious wing of the party on one side and the military/defense wing on the other (with Rudy's endorsement, McCain has the hawk's in his pocket.)

Why am I so hot for brokered conventions? First, going the distance actually allows most people in the country a voice in selecting their party's nominee. The two-party system is still restricting of political choice, but at least there is a chance for the public the shape the argument if there is a hard fought primary between candidates with different opinions/attributes. Next, having the convention serve as a nominating platform rather than an anointment of a pre-selected candidate can energize the party, something the Dems at least are in massive need of. After nominating slightly animated corpses for the last two general elections they have a chance at doing something different, and the energy from a hard-fought convention could send their nominee out ready to fight. Finally, at least in a short list, a hard-fought convention gives a chance that the larger concerns of the nation will play a role in making the platform. When a candidate walks into the convention as the nominee, their platform (with a few changes to appease the party) is taken as the platform. The logic being that the nominee one more primaries than the other candidates, so their vision must match what the party membership believe. Well, it might match the party, but as we've seen in the last two general elections, the twp parties are splitting the electorate. If a candidate, from either side, wants to get into office and actually accomplish any of the massive changes that we need to move forward they will need to do it with the backing of at least some of the members of the other party. Fighting for delegates at the conventions means that the "electability" argument will be front and center, and there could be some push to recognize the planks of the platform that are 1) ridiculous and 2) keeping cross-over votes at arms length.

Could be.

Politics

While I did start this blog primarily so I, too, could wax rhapsodic about cycling, I had other things I knew would creep (or in this case charge) in at some point. The other biggies in my life are politics - if there was a twelve-step for political addicts I'd need the 24-step version, and Buddhism. Today I'm not going to babble about my faith, since that's not really my thing (live, don't talk) but about politics.

I am a "small l" libertarian. For those who aren't familiar with the "small l"/"large L" argument in libertarian politics, it boils down to whether or not you are a member of the Libertarian Party (I'm not) and adhere to traditional libertarian philosophy on all subjects (I don't). Where I fall is in the "the smallest amount of government intervention possible" camp. Some things work better in the market, some things work better with a little regulation, and some things need to be managed by a central power. The trick is balancing and making sure that the managing is helping things run better.

That isn't really what I wanted to talk about today though. What I'm interested in discussing is the presidential primary, and my hopes for the races. I'll start by saying that I didn't vote for President in the last two elections. I'm registered Democrat, in California, which let me avoid the "I need to vote for the Dem guy or the state might go for the other one", given that the odds of California going for GWB were pretty slim. Gore didn't excite me, Lieberman made me not want to vote for the ticket. The next round was Kerry/Edwards and I couldn't think of a single reason to vote for them, especially since their whole campaign was "We're not Bush/Cheney" which wasn't anywhere near enough for me. In both of those elections I did vote on state and local issues, as well as the congressional candidates, I just skipped over the President.

This year I was hoping there would be someone to care about, there's not. What I'm hoping for now is a brokered convention. In essence this is where nobody makes it to the convention with enough votes to be the nominee. That means lots of politicking and trades to try and put together a coalition large enough to win, very similar to what you see on a regular basis in parliamentary governments with more than two political parties. It won't make a huge difference, since it would be intra-party politicking and not inter-party, but it could actually make for an interesting race.

It is possible, if not likely, that the Republican race will go that way. If Mormon-Mitt can get himself back on track and pull in some delegates before Super Tuesday there could be four semi-viable candidates left after it, with the votes split enough to bring them all to the convention with a fighting crew behind them. Unfortunately, the Democrats have pretty much been narrowed down to two rock stars and a bubblegum pop star trying to stay viable. If they stay split it would mean that Edwards could control the convention and short of coming home tonight to find my house a smoldering crater I can't think of many things that would upset me more.

There will be more political posts to come. Especially on days like this where I don't bike commute because of meetings, only to find out that the meeting was moved to a different day without anyone letting me know. Oh well. I'll hopefully get some miles in on the trainer when I get home tonight.

Widget

I've added the energy use widget from Fritz over at Cyclelicious. Rather than repeat everything he said about it, I'll just give the link to his post. Short version - it's a nifty little counter that tracks the amount of money spent on imported fossil fuels in the US this year. Check it out at his site if you're interested in how it works or to grab it for your own site.