GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF YOUR ASH

In case you haven't noticed, Southern California is on fire ... and it's bad. By some estimates, over 500000 people evacuated their homes during the height of the disaster. And should you falsely assume that Santa Barbara was spared this recent tragedy, we received a not so gentle reminder of our own Zaca Fire when Santa Ana winds whipped-up a bunch of ash, which inspired health officials to insist we stay indoors for several days. Cough!

On 60 Minutes a couple weeks ago, there was a great segment on the increase in frequency and intensity of wildfires over the last few years. In the show, it was pointed out that what would have been considered extreme fires a decade ago are common place today. And the key question it seems people are still a little afraid to ask is whether or not the cause is global warming. The 60 Minutes report definitely implied that was the case, although the "liberal media" couldn't avoid making the disclaimer that these "particular" fires couldn't necessarily be linked to climate change. Whatever. The thing I found the most telling, however, was the point at which Scott Pelley asked the lead firefighter about global warming skeptics, and his response was something to the effect of, "Well, you won't find any in our profession." If the 9/11 heroes believe it, shouldn't everybody?

The facts are overwhelming. If you read Joseph Romm's Huffington Post entry last week, you will see that this is exactly what has been predicted by many scientists in their climate change models. He starts off by pointing out that ....

Global warming makes wildfires more likely and more destructive -- as many scientific studies have concluded. Why? Global warming leads to more intense droughts, hotter weather, earlier snowmelt (hence less humid late summers and early autumns), and more tree infestations (like the pine beetle). That means wildfires are a dangerous amplifying feedback, whereby global warming causes more wildfires, which release carbon dioxide, thereby accelerating global warming.

Yet, unbelievably, there are still deniers out there who are determined to bury their heads in the ash and blame natural weather patterns or immigration or some such nonsense. None the less, the proof keeps mounting. In his post, Romm goes on to quote the August 2006 Science cover story, "Warming and Earlier Spring Increase Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity" ...

... virtually all climate-model projections indicate that warmer springs and summers will occur over the region in coming decades. These trends will reinforce the tendency toward early spring snowmelt and longer fire seasons. This will accentuate conditions favorable to the occurrence of large wildfires, amplifying the vulnerability the region has experienced since the mid-1980s ... If the average length and intensity of summer drought increases in the Northern Rockies and mountains elsewhere in the western United States, an increased frequency of large wildfires will lead to changes in forest composition and reduced tree densities, thus affecting carbon pools ...

This leads me to everyone's favorite Santa Barbara topical topic: The Light Blue Line Project. If you don't know, this was a nice, minimal cost effort to paint a blue line around the city showing where water levels might be if computer models predicting sea level rise were to play out. Good idea, right? I thought it was, and so did many of us who think it's important to raise awareness of global climate change. But sadly, the project was killed by a vocal group of people who thought the line might affect property values. In fact, some people were so angry that it apparently inspired all five Santa Barbara City Council challengers to jump into the race and oppose it. Here's what I said on Blogabarbara regarding the topic ...

Doesn't the blue line project really show the problem with the global warming debate in general? ... People are concerned about it, but they don't want to take any action if it adversely affects them in any way. In this case, it's just the "idea" of global warming's effect on SB that has these people up in arms. Shouldn't they (and all of us) be more worried about the real effects?

Here's the lesson, folks ... you could ignore the line but you could not ignore the fire. And you will not be able to ignore the other effects of global warming. So, let's stop ignoring and start doing.

YOU DRIVE ME CRAZY - TAKE 2

I suppose the risk of writing a blog is that someone might actually read it. In Tuesday's post, I took Frank Hotchkiss and Dale Francisco to task for their comments regarding transportation in the Santa Barbara Daily Sound. Since Dale Francisco took the time to compose a detailed and thoughtful rebuttal, I felt it only fair to repeat his letter in a separate post and then respond to the response ...

Average Man,

As you said, where to begin?

First, I agree with you that congestion pricing is one potential means of reducing traffic congestion. It makes sense to reward people for traveling in off-peak hours. But of course that's not an "alternative" form of transportation, it's simply making better use of the automobile and the road infrastructure.

It is one thing to point out that there are alternatives--cycling, walking, mass transit--to automobile travel. Who could disagree? It is quite another to show how a significant percentage of Santa Barbara's traffic in people, goods, and services is going to be shifted to those transportation modes.

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides. It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

When I told the reporter at the Sound that our local transportation planners were stuck in the 1970s, I spoke of a very specific example. Our planners are still focused on commuting trips, which were a majority of all automobile passenger miles back then. Now they constitute around 25% of all trips. What that means is that automobile ownership and usage have expanded to encompass trips to school, trips to music lessons, shopping trips, and endless other variations--a highly individualized web of trips ill suited to mass transit. Private transportation is deeply embedded in people's lives.

Those are the choices that people have made. If we're serious about reducing pollution, then the solution will likely come from cleaner technologies, not forced behavioral changes. In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

It's fine to set an example by renouncing the use of cars, and I have nothing but admiration for those who live their beliefs in that way. And I have nothing against alternative transportation. I originally came to Santa Barbara partly because this is one of the world's best places for biking and hiking, and because it has a walkable downtown. If I never had to drive a car, I'd be delighted. My own car typically spends days at a time parked at home.

I've spent a great deal of time studying and thinking about transportation planning. You may disagree with some of the conclusions I've reached, but I came to them in good faith, and like you I'm interested in the good of our community.

I'd be happy to talk over any of these issues with you in person, or by phone (I'm in the phone book).

Best regards,
Dale Francisco

Let me start off by saying that I do very much appreciate your comments, and your letter definitely leaves me with a different impression of Dale Francisco than I received from the Sound story. Having said that, however, I'm in this game to fight for a better country, and it seems to me that you didn't really address the spirit of my argument. I'd like to begin by looking at this quote:

It is not "defeatist" to note that private transportation's overwhelming popularity is due to the choices and convenience it provides.

It may not be defeatist to note the popularity of automobiles, but it is defeatist to say that nothing can or should be done about it. Your overall argument is that cars are here, they steer, so get used to it. To me, this is defeatist in the same way that some feel global warming is too big to address. Just because something is popular or convenient, doesn't mean it's good for the health and well being of the community. You continue:

It is far more realistic to work on technologies that improve private transportation--i.e., making it more green--than to continue in a policy of "encouraging" people to "get out of their cars," when there is little empirical evidence that such measures work.

Why not do both? And what's the evidence that such measures don't work? I've been to Toronto, Paris, London, and Amsterdam in the course of the last few years, and public transportation is just awesome -- and highly utilized -- in those cities. Would you tell them it doesn't work? I might agree with you that a strategy to "get people out of their cars" would be a hard sell "today," but we're not talking about today; we're talking about the future. As someone who wants to be a leader in this community, I think it is your responsibility to look past the current state of affairs and help to guide us in the right direction. You go on to say:

In a democracy, if you want to promote an alternative, then people must willingly, indeed eagerly embrace it.

Exactly! But it's not going to happen on its own. Let's not call it punishment; let's call it incentives. You say that Mayor Bloomberg's plan is not an "alternative" form of transportation. I disagree. If you have to pay $8 to drive into the city, less people will do it. Granted, that's a stick. So, then you use carrots as well. Carpool lanes, for example, are a carrot. More buses with more routes is a carrot. Making it difficult to park is a stick. The point is that you use every tool at your disposal to move the city where it needs to go.

In summary, I admire your commitment to green energy, and I'm happy to see you embrace cleaner technologies. But that's only half the picture ... taking any discussion of getting people out of their cars off the table is not in our long term interests.

Now, let's talk about The Light Blue Line Project :)

YOU DRIVE ME CRAZY

For well over a decade, my morning commute consisted of the 101 southbound stretch between Santa Barbara and Carpinteria. Granted, I haven't seen all the beauty this great country has to offer, but I can't imagine there are many nicer sites than the big blue ocean I had the luxury of viewing out the right side of my car. The left side, however, was a completely different story ... year after year, I watched with sadness as those poor people from Ventura had to endure more and more congestion in their simple quest to make a living each day in SB. Today, that scene can only be described as a traffic nightmare. If you don't leave your house before the rooster crows in the morning, you better hope to have a good audio book to pass the time.

That's where we are today, and it certainly shows no sign of slowing any time soon. So, what is one to do about this traffic quagmire? That's easy: just expand the freeway, right? Maybe; maybe not. For me, widening the 101 may seem like a quick and easy solution, but it is ultimately short sighted and doesn't really address the main issue ... The fact is that you can keep widening roads until the cows come home, but we all know deep down that this strategy is a short term one. The California Department of Finance recently projected that there will be some 60 million people living in the California by 2050. If you don't really comprehend what that means, I think Verlyn Klinkenborg did a good job of outlining the implications in his July 18th New York Times Editorial:

Somehow the numbers in themselves don’t really suggest the sobering weight of this projection. To say that for every three Californians now there will be five in 2050 doesn’t capture the scale of change. If you said that for every three houses now there will be five in 2050, or for every three cars, ditto, you might be getting a little closer to the visceral feel of the thing. But when it comes to houses and cars, California is a land of loaves and fishes, always multiplying in the most unexpected ways.

Now, let's think locally. Like many of you, I am still evaluating the candidates for the upcoming Santa Barbara City Council race and have not yet made up my mind as to who should get my vote. I will, however, say this ... Frank Hotchkiss and Dale Francisco should be voted off the island. Last week, the Santa Barbara Daily Sound interviewed all the candidates for their thoughts surrounding transportation. There were many interesting ideas thrown around on this important subject, but let's just focus on those two guys. First, here's what the Sound had to say about Hotchkiss:

While Hotchkiss admitted he is not an expert in transportation and traffic circulation engineering, he said his stance on how the city needs to address congestion concerns is fairly straightforward ... "Clearly I'm a car guy," Hotchkiss said ... Reiterating a statement he made earlier in his campaign, he said Santa Barbara needs to prepare for a future with cars, instead of trying to force them into alternative forms of transportation ... "At least let's not plan on someone not having a car..."

And here's part of the article regarding Francisco:

Traffic planners in Santa Barbara are stuck in the 1970s, clinging to the idea that automobiles are inherently bad, Francisco said ... "I would like to see some realism," he said. "...There is no question that there are downsides to automobiles. But what is the alternative?"

Um, where to begin? If you've been paying attention at all, Santa Barbara is doing some great things in the transportation arena. From electric buses to more bike lanes; from increased MTD routes to biodiesel in city fleets, we are more than committed to being a green city. All these solutions may not be perfect -- and there is clearly work to be done -- but the defeatest statements by Hotchkiss and Francisco are just plain backwards. Reading these quotes, I was immediately reminded of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan to make NYC the greenest big U.S. city by reducing the city's global warming emissions 30 percent by 2030. As I quoted in that blog entry:

... Bloomberg's first (and toughest) sell may be congestion pricing for Manhattan, which he reluctantly embraced out of fear the economy of the city could be paralyzed by a projected 20 percent increase, by 2030, of traffic on the already clogged island ... The $8-a-day fee for cars and $21 for trucks ... would pay for vast subway improvements and expansion, plus increased commuter connections into the city.

Doesn't it feel a little silly to say that the answer for Santa Barbara is "At least let's not plan on someone not having a car" and "What's the alternative?" when New York City is coming up with solutions like that one? And speaking of Bloomberg, Thomas L. Friedman (you know, The World is Flat guy) wrote a great New York Times Op-Ed piece recently on this subject. Here's a part of it:

On May 22, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, one of the greenest mayors in America, decided to push even further, insisting on a new rule, which the taxi commission has to approve, that will not just permit but require all cabs — 13,000 in all — to be hybrids or other low-emission vehicles that get at least 30 miles a gallon, within five years.

"When it comes to health and safety and environmental issues, government should be setting standards," the mayor said. "What you need are leaders who are willing to push for standards that are in society’s long-term interest." When the citizens see the progress, Mr. Bloomberg added, "then they start to lead." And this encourages leaders to seek even higher standards.

This is how scale change happens...

He couldn't be more right. So, Santa Barbara, let's elect leaders who actually lead in November and not entertain people who are truly stuck in the 1970s.

I WISH THE MEDIA WERE LIBERAL

If you live in Santa Barbara, it would be hard to ignore Barack Obama's recent trip to our quaint little town. In fact -- thanks to Opra -- pretty much the whole world knew about the engagement. By some accounts, upwards of five thousand people showed up to his rally at Santa Barbara City College and cemented his place as a local political rock star. Why, many ask, is this man so popular? Is it his youth, his energy, his message of hope, his sense of humor, his commitment to change, or something entirely different? My answer would be all of the above. But it's one recent Obama statement in particular on which I would like to focus ... the audacity of not wearing an American flag lapel pin. Let's come back to that.

I've made no secret of the fact that I think the media leans right. To the majority of Americans, that's crazy talk: we all know the media is liberal, no? And why do we "know" that? Because it's what we've been told over and over and over again by the Republican Noise Machine until it's permanently burned into our brains. The end result of this extremely effective campaign is that the media is now hyper-paranoid of being perceived as leaning left and, thus, goes out of its way to treat conservatives with kid gloves. And the converse of this phenomena is that those same gloves are completely removed when it comes to progressives.

This brings us back to Barack Obama. In a recent interview, it was pointed out that he was no longer wearing an American flag lapel pin. His response was the following:

... I probably haven't worn a flag pin in a very long time. After a while I noticed people wearing a lapel pin and not acting very patriotic ... My attitude is that I'm less concerned about what you're wearing on your lapel than what's in your heart. You show your patriotism by how you treat your fellow Americans, especially those who serve. You show your patriotism by being true to our values and ideals. That's what we have to lead with is our values and our ideals.

Hmmm, seems like a reasonable statement, right? Well, if the media was truly "fair and balanced," it would have been treated as such. But that's not what happened. Instead, the right jumped all over it and accused Obama of being unpatriotic. The media in turn did what they always do with Democratic presidential candidates ... the issue was exploded out of proportion and the media fed the myth. Let's give some other examples of this journalistic pattern:

1) A small group of conservatives with ties to Bush started a since debunked rumor that John Kerry was a coward and didn't really deserve his purple heart and other medals. You may remember this referred to as "swiftboating." Did the media come to his defense and tell the truth about what happened in Vietnam? No, they perpetuated the myth, and Kerry lost. But hey, they did manage to scare up some outrage at the "general betray us" ad.

2) Howard Dean, in a moment of excitement, had the nerve to scream at a rally. Did the media explain the real story about how loud it was, about his desire to pump up his supporters, and about the fact that you couldn't hear the crowd on TV? No, they played the clip over and over, perpetuating the myth that he was a crazy man. Diane Sawyer had the guts to explain how unfair that was. Funny how her comments weren't played endlessly.

3) The right loves to repeat the lie that Al Gore took credit for "inventing the Internet." First, he never said that. Second, he did actually have a big hand in the evolution of the Internet. Did the liberal media rally behind the truth for Al Gore. No, once again, they repeated the lie. And speaking of the recent Nobel Prize winner, I think Bob Herbert summed up the 2000 election pretty well in Saturday's column:

Mr. Gore was taken to task for his taste in clothing and for such grievous offenses as sighing or, allegedly, rolling his eyes. It was a given that at a barbecue everyone would rush to be with his opponent.

4) John Edwards received an expensive haircut. See any articles about Romney's grooming habits lately?

So, let me be clear. My point here isn't to say that the media is in cahoots with conservatives. No, what I'm trying to argue is that the media -- in its fervor to be seen as centered -- will let these rumors, myths, and lies about Democrats take hold but won't apply the same level of scrutiny to the actions of Republicans. And that, my friends, is leaning to the right.

As Bill Maher so eloquently states in the above clip, the media (and the public) continuously say how desperate they are for presidential candidates who are bold and speak from the heart. But the cruel joke is that they've set up an environment where you have to be a spineless, say nothing, wooden robot in order to get elected as a Democrat. If your last name is Bush, however, you can say and do whatever you want ... and the liberal media is happy to oblige. As Paul Krugman once joked regarding this topic:

If Bush said tomorrow that the Earth is flat, the headlines the next day would read "Shape of the World: Opinions Differ"

I DON'T LIKE GUNS, BUT...

So, I was enjoying my morning coffee the other day, when one of my right wing co-workers sent me this link about an incident in Colorado. He then smugly said something to this effect:

See what your liberal friends are doing.

Basically, the article is about a guy who shot a mountain lion because it had the man's dog in its mouth. The story then goes on to say that some wildlife advocates are irate. One such crazy wildlife advocate named Wendy (hmmm) was quoted as saying the following:

I think the state should throw the book at him.

My co-worker, of course, thought that I would come to the defense of the mountain lion. But I'm a dog owner, and I have no problem saying that I would do anything to protect my animal. Thus, it was with much pleasure that I shot back:

Good for him. I would have done the same thing. See, all us liberals don't think alike.

Case closed, right? Well, no ... later that day I had lunch with a couple left leaning buddies of mine, and we discussed the issue. But to my dismay and horror, they both -- without so much as blinking -- said that they would probably have obeyed the law and let the mountain lion drag off Rover.

What!? I almost fell off my chair and spit out my sandwich. So, I had to spend the next hour explaining to them what dogs have given to us over the years, that (even in nature) you protect your own, that some laws are worth breaking, blah, blah, blah. Anyway, they eventually conceded that the mountain lion should go, but I suspect they were just trying to shut me up.

To me, this was an easy call. But it seems that maybe I'm in the minority. So, who should survive ... Rover or the mountain lion?

WHY SO BLUE?

California is a great place to live. We have nice weather, nice beaches, Hollywood, theater, Disneyland; you name it. I moved here from Las Vegas in 1987 to attend UC Santa Barbara and never looked back. In those days, politics was the last thing on my mind, but I've since matured (well, I still enjoy Star Trek and comic books, so I suppose I haven't grown all that much). In the last decade or so, I've come to realize that another thing I like about calling California my home is that fact that we are a Blue State. Would I live here if we weren't? Sure. But the fact that the majority of Californians share my world view is admittedly comforting.

Conservatives living in California are quite aware of its Blue State status, and they're not happy about it. To hear some of them talk, you'd think they are preparing to be hauled off to secret prison camps in the Eastern Bloc or something. If you don't believe me, just check out our local "woe is me" Conservative Turtle or Minority Report. Jeez, relax guys: liberals make love, not war. Personally, I don't get the fear and paranoia. I mean, you can't honestly feel underrepresented in the US of A, can you?

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that California will always be Blue -- Reagan wasn't that long ago -- but if some day the political winds do change, I want it to be because the majority of Californians voted for it in a fair and honest election. If you've been paying attention lately, there was a recent attempt by Republicans to instantly turn California Red; it's called the "Presidential Election Reform Act" ... In a nutshell, it was an attempt to change the winner take all process for presidential elections so that California's Electoral College votes would be divided by regions. According to past voting records, the end result of this is that the GOP would get 20 additional electoral votes from California in the next election.

It appears that this initiative has crashed and burned, but I think it's important to discuss its underlying implications. In a rather ironic statement, Gov. Schwarzenegger recently said the following regarding the proposal ...

I feel like if you, all the sudden in the middle of the game, start changing the rules it's kind of odd, it almost feels like a loser's mentality, saying I cannot win with those rules, so let me change the rules… I have not made up my mind yet in one way or the other, because I haven't seen the details on it.

This, of course, is comical considering that he is only governor due to that horrible recall election. If anyone has forgotten, let me remind you ... Republican Darrell Issa spent a million dollars of his own money financing that recall election so that he could be governor. That didn't work out so well for him, but the end result is that Schwarzenegger skated into the position on name recognition alone. Ultimately, I'm actually pretty happy about that fact, because listening to Issa defend Blackwater on CSPAN this weekend made me ill. So, what, now supporting the troops means you have to support corporate sponsored contractors?

The point here is that this establishes a pattern for Republicans: before recall elections and reform acts, there was the Texas gerrymandering fiasco and voter suppression in Florida & Ohio. And it doesn't end there: soon the ever more conservative Supreme Court will be taking on Indiana's voter ID law. Gee, I wonder how that 5-4 decision will go?

What I take away from these events is that the Right knows they are losing the battle of ideas, so they have to cheat the system in order to maintain power. With that in mind, I would have to say that Schwarzenegger is correct: if you can't win on your own merits, then you're a loser.