Sam's Notes

Traffic heaven

UNCC professor David Hartgen says urban commuters will be stuck in traffic purgatory for some time:

"Despite growing frustration, drivers, businesses and political leaders have largely resigned themselves to a new reality: living with traffic jams. But living with it is going to become increasingly difficult.

"Today, just four U.S. cities (Los Angeles, Chicago, Washington and San Francisco-Oakland) have daily congestion delays that prolong peak-hour trips by more than 50 percent. That means what should be a 30-minute commute takes 45 minutes. Over the next 25 years, 30 cities will join that club. And drivers in an unlucky 12 cities will face daily bottlenecks worse than the notorious traffic jams in today's Los Angeles -- their commutes will take at least 75 percent longer than off-peak trips, according to a new report by the Reason Foundation.....

"Before you pack up and move to Small Town USA, you should know that things are getting just as bad there. Congestion in Boise, Idaho, is expected to double by 2030. In Albany, N.Y., it will almost triple."

As you well know, local governments believe mass transit is the answer:

"Some cities, like Charlotte and San Jose, Calif., are crossing their fingers and praying that people will embrace transit. In both cities less than 3 percent of daily commuters ride transit. Yet both are spending well over 50 percent of their money on transit projects. If massive numbers of people don't give up their cars -- and there's no evidence they will -- those cities and many like them will have condemned themselves to traffic purgatory."

Hartgen's suggestion: Build more roads:

"....(R)educing traffic congestion is neither particularly difficult nor costly. If extended nationwide, a mobility project focused on relieving congestion primarily through added road capacity would cost about $21 billion per year over 25 years, much cheaper than the ineffective alternatives we're planning now."

We're not at the praying and finger-crossing stage here in the Triad. Let's hope we never get there. The road to traffic heaven is paved with asphalt.

Six in a row

Did I say good for California in the last post? Forget that.

It's 7:30 am, and I'm here. The coffee's still brewing and my N&R print edition sits in the rain. That's what a West Coast road trip does to a man.

Ah, Maddux. Respect him? Yes. Like him? I'll get back to you.

hazy

California sets emissions limits:

"California would become the first state to impose a limit on all greenhouse gas emissions, including those from industrial plants, under a landmark deal reached Wednesday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and legislative Democrats.

The agreement marks a clear break with the Bush administration and puts California on a path to reducing its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an estimated 25 percent by 2020."

Good for California. But is it me, or does the article fail to explain how the "landmark deal" represents a break with the Bush administration? Is it because a state is setting such rigorous emissions standards? Again, good for them. Is it because Schwarzenegger appeased environmentalists to position himself as a leader in the fight against global warming?

Absent such explanation, the deal looks like it's right up the Bush administration's alley:

"A key mechanism driving the reductions would be a market program allowing businesses to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies....

"During the negotiations over the California cap, Schwarzenegger sought to appease his supporters in the business community by arguing for safeguards for the industries that would be most affected.

"Administration officials have spent weeks seeking assurances that any legislation would require a market program similar to those in the European Union. The idea would allow businesses to buy, sell or trade emission credits with other companies instead of making their own reductions if those cuts were considered too costly or technology difficult....

"The negotiated bill included a provision allowing the governor to push the cap deadline back by one year 'in the event of extraordinary circumstances, catastrophic events or threat of significant economic harm.'''

punk'd

I'm not a big tennis fan, but a buddy got me fired up over Agassi's U.S. Open swan song.

So I tuned in last night and sat on the edge of my couch as I watched Agassi and James Blake duel to a tiebreak, wondering if this indeed would be Agassi's last match. Agassi prevailed; his career was not over.

Then I wake up this morning and read where rain washed out yesterday's matches.

Oops.

'guilt by association'

Ranting Profs calls this Washington Post article on Iraqi civilian deaths "borderline irresponsible," considering the fact that it

"....only discusses those instances in which civilians have been killed in all likelihood intentionally, inappropriately, in situations where some kind of criminal charge should at least be considered. As a result the strong impression is left that if a civilian is killed by a military service member something at least borderline criminal has taken place, and if no charges have been filed, something is wrong."

I read the article with interest, and actually came away feeling that it was "borderline balanced." Do soldiers take the law, whatever that may be in a war zone, into their own hands? Yes. Do the punishments fit the "crimes?" Perhaps.

An interesting example was the case of Army Pvt. Federico Daniel Merida, who killed an Iraqi soldier in May 2004 by shooting him 11 times after the two had sex." Merida was later sentenced to 25 years in prison and given a dishonorable discharge. Without the details of the incident, which the Post doesn't provide, it's hard for us to judge whether or not Merida's punishment fit his crime.

Ranting isn't saying "there aren't important questions to be asked about those deaths. Is the rate of those deaths higher or lower than previous American wars? Are commanders doing enough to investigate such deaths and to use them as either training opportunities or opportunities to ensure that unit procuedures are improved if possible? Do they in any way reflect sloppiness or a lack of care?"

Trying to answer the first question is where the Post undermines its own argument. The article says "39 U.S. service members were charged with crimes in connection with the deaths of Iraqi civilians or for allegedly covering them up, from the start of the war in March 2003 through early 2006."

By comparison, "there were 27 Marines and 95 Army soldiers convicted of murder and manslaughter in that conflict, which lasted much longer and produced many more casualties than the Iraq war has so far."

So is it not bogus to claim that homicide charges are rare in the Iraq war when the number of soldiers charged is already one-third of those charged in a war that lasted 20 years?

It also helps to think about our justice system here at home. People end up dead all the time at the hands of assailants who, needless to say, aren't suffering from the stress of battle. Depending on plea agreements and the benevolence of socially-conscious juries, their punishments don't necessarily fit the crime, either.

jubal. Jubal, jubal, jubal....

Former Helms strategist Carter Wrenn pens a novel in which the main character is based on you-know-who.

It's not a pretty picture.

no pressure

It's not enough that Philip Rivers is expected to lead the Chargers to the playoffs this season. It's also his job to keep the team in San Diego:

"If they do not have a stadium deal in San Diego County by Jan. 1, the Chargers, who were 9-7 last season, are free to negotiate with other cities and move after the 2008 season. Players have a simple theory on the matter: the more passes Rivers completes, and the more games the Chargers win, the more the county will want a new house for its team."

anger management. pt II

So I dealt with my anger by retreating to Smith Mountain Lake for the weekend. The water was great, but it was a little hazy. So the surrounding countryside made better pictures.

I couldn't quite get away from it all, though. When you're addicted, your addiction's going to find you, as the late Steve Howe discovered after he moved to Montana.

I was making a quick run to the local supermarket when I saw a guy wearing a Yankees cap and T-shirt. It triggered a memory: the Reds are on a crucial West Coast road trip. No cable back at the cabin, and early-edition papers wouldn't have the box score. So I get on my cell phone and call Floyd Stuart, who hops on his computer and brekas the news that the Reds lost.

I analyzed my behavior on the way back to the cabin. I came to this conclusion: It's going to be one of those anxious Septembers, one where no rest will come until the evening's box score flows across whatever news service is available. I hope.

anger management

Greensboro's Sherry Tow thinks she knows why Greensboro is one of America's angriest cities:

"After analyzing the article, I believe this situation has developed because so many employees are not making enough money to sustain their families. Many residents are forced to work two jobs to survive because of poor wages. Although real estate is reasonable, that doesn't make up the difference of a 40 percent reduction in salary compared to the West Coast.

"Yes, there are those who do well: doctors, lawyers, financial counselors, developers and others. By and large, the remaining population continues to barely make it while everything from gas to food goes up in price."

Personally, I think the article's a bunch of bullshit. But if I didn't, I'd say a contributing factor is a school system that can't get a grip on construction costs.

According to the N&R, the school system will seek reimbursement for the structural work at Eastern, Kernodle and Hairston. I don't see how this can be done without legal action, and I doubt the will of the school board to pursue such action. It will probably be easier to just eat it.

Dictionary at hand

Kathleen Parker dismisses the notion that Bush is an idiot:

"When he tries to speak Washington English, which is the way Bush thinks presidents are supposed to speak -- over-enunciating and sprinkling his comments with awkward aphorisms -- he fumbles. He forgets what he's saying because the thoughts and words are not his own."

I will admit, though, that watching or reading the transcripts of a Bush press conference prompts a person to keep the dictionary close at hand:

"Nobody's ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. I have suggested, however, that resentment and the lack of hope create the breeding grounds for terrorists who are willing to use suiciders to kill, to achieve an objective. I have made that case."

No, "suiciders" isn't in the dictionary. Suicidally, suicided, suiciding, suicidology. But not suiciders.