Me: Frank Lynch

Home
(Current commentary)

These are my mundane daily ramblings.
For something less spontaneous, I maintain The Samuel Johnson Sound Bite Page (over 1,800 Johnson quotes).

Email:
frank
dot
lynch2
at
verizon
dot
net

No time to let up on the gas tax. I've never been a big fan of the concept of consumption taxes because they're generally not progressive enough for me — progressive in the sense that their burden is felt more by those with lower incomes than those with higher incomes — and so I'm glad that there's no sales tax on food. When it comes to gasoline, yes, it's kind of the same thing, but I really think that it's good social policy to make people think more about alternatives to driving their cars. Or to give greater consideration to car pooling, or more efficient second cars like the Smart.

There are lots of reasons to argue against gas tax holidays, and the primary reason is of course that measures to provide relief are inefficient: a good chunk of the reductions get pocketed in the supply chain before they hit the consumers' wallets, and government revenue is merely lost.

But beyond that, there's the social policy point I alluded to earlier. (Disclaimer repeated: I work in marketing research, and my clients are in mass transit. I think it's because I value mass transit that I chose this job more than my clients influencing my opinions, but that's beside the point of a disclosure statement.)

Several mass transit systems are reporting significant ridership increases compared to last year — such as 10-15%, and it's occurring in areas where car culture has reigned supreme, such as the South and the West. It's even being seen here in NYC, where we have a very well developed transit system: you'd think that mass transit is already well known and there'd be no one else to take it, but ridership is up.

A lot of the rosy drawings of mass transit have focused on light rail. (For instance, Paul Weyrich, a noted conservative, wrote a piece which dealt with ten canards against mass transit, and in an awful lot of his pro-transit arguments he was talking about the benefits of light rail more than buses. Regrettably I don't have the reference here, it's in the bibliography for a report I was a co-author on for the TCRP, I'll update this on Monday if you want.)

Conceptually I see advantages for light rail over buses in terms of traffic prioritization, but I've never traveled on light-rail for commuting, and I rarely take a bus here in NYC. But even the bus systems are reporting increases in ridership.

There are also shifts in the vehicles that people are buying, downsizing from SUV's, although I don't know what the sales are for the little pods like the Mini Coopers and the Smarts. (Does anyone remember that ad which dissed small cars? It's like a car, only smaller?)

I have to level with you on my emotional ties here, because this goes beyond my current position, it ties into why I chose marketing research as a career. In high school and college in the 1970's, the era of long gas lines and diminishing market shares for Detroit, I couldn't figure out how the big US car manufacturers got blind-sided by desires for smaller cars. Back then I really saw the value of marketing research, accurately reported and rationally acted on, as a valuable tool that would strengthen any country's economy. And it was out of this opportunity for greater market efficiency that I chose marketing research as a career.

And so here I am, seeing more and more people doing the "right thing" for themselves and the world by opting for smaller cars and mass transit; and I think about the opportunities which Detroit has if it chooses to capitalize on them... And I think about calls to reduce gas taxes, when what is really increasing gas prices isn't the taxes but an evolving world... And the thought that we would go backwards on gas taxes just makes me think we're trying to ignore realities and opportunities which are staring us in the face.

I would so hate for these supposed holidays to happen. In my mind they're going to do more harm than good.
Link | | | 9:12 PM | Home
 

Condoleezza Rice cleared too easily in 2004? Among the scope of the FBI's investigations of Scott Bloch, a federal investigator himself, is this: back in 2004, there was some concern that Rice was timing her trips to support Bush's reelection; Bloch cleared her of ethics violations accusations, and the FBI wants to know what factored into his decisions.

It really doesn't seem like we've ever suspected the Buah Admninistration of enough, rather than too much.
Link | | | 7:14 AM | Home

Happy Birthday, Thomas Pynchon. Ya done good; you can take the day off if you like.
Link | | | 7:14 AM | Home
 

Mitt Romney on Obama. On CNN's "American Morning," host John Roberts asked Mitt Romney what the likely Republican line of attack might be on Obama. After saying that he couldn't speak for McCain, Romney pointed to Obama's short resume, and said that the Presidency is not an internship.

There may be something to that argument: while the current President's resume was longer than Obama's, it was still short. But on the other hand, Bush's additional experience doesn't seem to have helped him, nor did the accumulated experience of the "grown ups" in whom the anti-Clintonites put their fath.

It's a tough call: certainly McCain bears the same vulnerabilities that Kerry bore with his long Senate career. Obama may have the upper hand on this line, seeing as how he can still keep the Sunnis and Shiites straight in his head and is more realistic about what we can do with gas taxes and oil independence.
Link | | | 7:59 AM | Home
 

...in which we learn more about "what sticks." Well, the elitist thing certainly hurt Obama in Guam (what a squeaker that one was), and I guess tonight we'll get a better sense of whether or not Obama has effectively blown it or Clinton has out-maneuvered him.

For Clinton's part, you can't say she's not giving it her all: their policies are so similar, it's as if one side had to distract the ref before throwing the clip. She's basically tried everything Bush would have tried, short of spreading rumors about Obama having fathered black children. What with the "3 AM call" advertisement, the 9/11 imagery, Michigan, Florida, and this little ploy about a gas tax holiday: I've been pretty neutral about the two (but preferring Obama), and her behavior of late really has me wondering which of the two of them we'd want on the world stage trying to garner international favor to beat the terrorists world-wide.

And Obama? I thought it was interesting to see him take the gloves off this weekend, but the way he spun her gas tax position was over the top. Misrepresent Paul Krugman? Go there not.

I also think Clinton has the superior health plan — Obama disagrees of course.

Neither of them are Dodd. Neither of them are Edwards, nor Gore. Not much is certain tonight, of course, except that Senator Clinton just hasn't been able to deliver that knock-out punch.
Link | | | 7:45 PM | Home
 

Michaela Petri's got nothin' on her. Saw this this morning on Transatlantic Sessions on Ovation TV. Breda Smyth.

What was McCain thinking? By now you've probably read about McCain's plans for us to be independent of Mideast oil, and his gaffe

"My friends, I will have an energy policy that we will be talking about, which will eliminate our dependence on oil from the Middle East that will -- that will then prevent us -- that will prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East," McCain said.

McCain's first attempt to clarify did him no good, because it meant that we went to war for oil in Gulf War I:

Later, on his campaign plane, McCain tried to clarify his remarks, claiming that he was talking about the "the first Gulf War." Pressed by a reporter, McCain stumbled when asked if he was actually "thinking about the first Gulf War" when he made the statement:

But then when specifically asked by an Associated Press reporter if, when he made the statement, he was "thinking about the first Gulf War," he said no.

"No, I was thinking about- it’s not hard to- we will not," McCain stumbled. "By eliminating our dependency on foreign oil, we will not have to have our national security threatened by a cut off of that oil. Because we will be dependent, because we won’t be dependent, we will no longer be dependent on foreign oil. That’s what my remarks were."

Later attempts to "clarify," er, "back pedal," er, weren't any more helpful:

"No, no, I was talking about that we had fought the Gulf War for several reasons," McCain told reporters.

One reason was Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, he said. "But also we didn’t want him to have control over the oil, and that part of the world is critical to us because of our dependency on foreign oil, and it’s more important than any other part of the world," he said.

"If the word `again’ was misconstrued, I want us to remove our dependency on foreign oil for national security reasons, and that’s all I mean," McCain said.

"The Congressional Record is very clear: I said we went to war in Iraq because of weapons of mass destruction," he said.

Sure. He says he said we were invading because of WMDs, but now we have to ask what he was thinking. Yesterday's slip — if that's what it was — makes this a very legitimate question.

If Ted Rall were better known, you could say you see the fall advertising already: War for Oil was a big theme Rall played up, and many on the left said "we're not as left as he is!" (even if, now that I think about it, it was other comments made which seemed to merit his abandonment). McCain has essentially put himself with the "loony left," even if he may have been speaking the truth. I mean, there was plenty of evidence that Saddam Hussein didn't really have n active weapons program, the UN had inspectors on the ground, and there were plenty of other peoples we could have rescued.

Curiously, I still don't understand what McCain is talking about even after the clarification. Complete independence of foreign oil? Or maybe just the oil in the Mideast? If the latter, that means we'll be getting more from Venezuela. That's right, America's best friend. And if the former, well, what kind of car does McCain drive? Anyone ever seen him on anything remotely resembling mass transit? (The campaign bus does not count.)
Link | | | 3:53 PM | Home
 

"I wish to go to the festival..." Did you ever see "Into the Woods"? Musicals aren't prominent on my radar as a form, but Stephen Sondheim's and James Lapine's "Into The Woods" has stood out in my head.

Tonight I was asking Zoë (our 14 year old) if she knew what happened 5 years ago. Of course I knew she didn't know that this was the anniversary of the great, stage-crafted speech by Bush, what with his landing with the protective hardwear under his flightsuit, the fine scrim proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," and his declaration that major combat operations were done. Kaput. Happy Days are here again. Chicken in every pot, and woncha love muh tax cuts.

We know what happened with Bush's tomfoolery in Iraq — and let's be honest, Bush was not the only scoundrel, he couldn't have done it alone, there were a lot of people who weren't content with the Clinton containment policies, and signed on to the policies of the Project For A New American Century (can anyone say that, still, with a straight face? does that organization's name not sound like a "go ahead, take me down, I dare you!" kind of bullyish expression, "pardon me while I stroke myself" kind of thing?) Go ahead and do a web search on the Project For A New American Century, I won't give you the link. It would sully my html. It just would. And those bastards, and every one who smoked their banana peels can take comfort in the loss of thousands of American lives and the many more Iraqi lives.

(And should be the type of weasel who says, "yeah, but Saddam was killing people, too!", well of course he was. But Hussein was already in a downward spiral because the sanctions were working. It was a matter of time. Those who chose to invade not only have to prove the value of conflicting vectors, they also have to justify this intervention over others: and the opportunity costs we've suffered by making this intervention. OBL laid it out in 2004, just before the Presidential elections: when OBL blinks, Bush acts like the sky is falling. Seriously.)

So let's draw this back to "Into The Woods". Zoë understands the theme: the first act is all these fairy tales, concluding with the "happily ever after" part. The second act sweeps away the superficial view that happiness is so simply constituted, and lays out all the underlying problems.

It's a dark perspective of the fairy tales: and yet, the second act concludes with an isolated voice, singing "I wish..."

The learnings of the first and second acts have been cast aside.

Mission accomplished, gang. Let's march into another country. Hey, ho, let's go!
Link | | | 11:37 PM | Home
 

Back to top.