Monthly Archives: August 2004

Lost opportunity

by

Actually, the honorable thing for Clinton would have been to resign. I argued for that in a Time magazine article as soon as he revealed that he had lied to the nation.[12] I knew, of course, that he wouldn’t. He had thrown himself off the highest cliff ever, and he had to prove he could catch a last-minute branch and pull himself, improbably, back up. And damned if he didn’t. He ended his time as president with high poll numbers and some new accomplishments, the greatest of the Kid’s comebacks�so great that I have been asked if I still feel he should have resigned. Well, I do. Why? Partly because what Ross Perot said in 1996 was partly true�that Clinton would be “totally occupied for the next two years in staying out of jail.” That meant he would probably go on lying. He tried for as long as possible to “mislead” the nation on Gennifer Flowers. He still claims that Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey made false charges. Perhaps they did, but he became unbelievable about personal behavior after lying about Flowers and Lewinsky. I at first disbelieved the story Paula Jones told because it seemed too bizarre; but the cigar-dildo described by Monica Lewinsky considerably extended the vistas of the bizarre.

Though Clinton accomplished things in his second term, he did so in a constant struggle to survive. Unlike the current president, his administration found in Sudan the presence of a weapon of mass destruction (the nerve gas precursor Empta) and bombed the place where it had existed�but many, including Senator Arlen Specter and the journalist Seymour Hersh, said that Clinton was just bombing another country to distract people from his scandal.[13] “That reaction,” according to Richard Clarke, “made it more difficult to get approval for follow-up attacks on al Quaeda.”[14] Even when Clinton was doing things, the appearance of his vulnerability made people doubt it. It was said in the Pentagon that he was afraid to seize terrorists because of his troubles; but Clarke rebuts those claims�he says that every proposal to seize a terrorist leader, whether it came from the CIA or the Pentagon, was approved by Clinton “during my tenure as CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] chairman, from 1992 to 2001.”

We shall never know what was not done, or not successfully done, because of Clinton’s being politically crippled. He has been criticized for his insufficient response to the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Michael Walzer said of the bombing raids Clinton finally authorized that “our faith in airpower is…a kind of idolatry.”[15] But Clinton was limited in what he could do by the fact that the House of Representatives passed a resolution exactly the opposite of the war authorization that would be given George W. Bush�it voted to deny the President the power to commit troops. Walzer says that Clinton should have prodded the UN to take action; but a Republican Congress was not going to follow a man it distrusted when he called on an institution it distrusted.

At the very end of Clinton’s regime, did Arafat feel he was not strong enough in his own country to pressure him into the reasonable agreement Clinton had worked out and Ehud Barak had accepted? Clinton suggests as much when he says that Arafat called him a great man, and he had to reply: “I am not a great man. I am a failure, and you have made me one.”

Clinton had a wise foreign policy. But in an Oval Office interview, shortly before he admitte lying to the nation, he admitted that he had not been able to make it clear to the American people His vision had so little hold upon the public that Bush was able to discard it instantly when he cam in. Clinton summed up the difference between his and Bush’s approach for Charlie Rose by sayin that the latter thinks we should “do what we want whenever we can, and then we cooperate whe we have to,” whereas his policy was that “we were cooperating whenever we could and we acte alone only when we had to.” The Bush people are learning the difference between the two policies a their pre-emptive unilateralism fails

Clinton claims that he was not hampered in his political activity by scandals. He even said, to Charlie Rose, that “I probably was more attentive to my work for several months just because I didn’t want to tend to anything else.” That is improbable a priori and it conflicts with what he told Dan Rather about the atmosphere caused by the scandal: “The moment was so crazy. It was a zoo. It was an unr�it was �it was like living in a madhouse.” Even if he were not distracted, the press and the nation were. His staff was demoralized. The Democrats on the Hill were defensive, doubtful, absorbed in either defending Clinton or deflecting criticism from themselves. His freedom to make policy was hobbled.

Clinton likes to talk now of his “legacy.” That legacy should include partial responsibility for the disabling of the Democratic Party. There were things to be said against the Democratic Leadership Council (Mario Cuomo said them well) and the “triangulation” scheme of Dick Morris, by which Clinton would take positions to the right of most congressional Democrats and to the left of the Republican Party. But Clinton, as a Southerner, knew that the party had to expand its base back into sources of support eroded by the New Right. This was a defensible (in fact a shrewd) strategy as Clinton originally shaped it. He could have made it a tactical adjunct to important strategic goals. But after the scandals, all his maneuvering looked desperate�a swerving away from blows, a flurried scrambling to find solid footing. His very success made Democrats think their only path to success was to concede, cajole, and pander. Al Gore began his 2000 campaign unhappy about his association with Clinton but trying to outpander him when he opposed the return of the Cuban boy Eli�n Gonzalez to his father. There is a kind of rude justice to the fact that the election was stolen from Gore in the state where he truckled to the Cubans.

Clinton bequeathed to his party not a clear call to high goals but an omnidirectional proneness to pusillanimity and collapse. This was signaled at the very outset of the new presidency. The Democrats, still in control of the Senate, facing a president not even strong enough to win the popular vote, a man brought into office by linked chicaneries and chance (Kathleen Harris, Ralph Nader, Antonin Scalia), nonetheless helped to confirm John Ashcroft as attorney general. The senators knew Ashcroft well; they were surely not impressed by his acumen or wisdom.

A whole series of capitulations followed. While still holding a majority in the Senate, the Democrats did not use subpoenas and investigative powers to challenge Dick Cheney’s secret drafting of energy policy with Enron and other companies. A portion of the Democrats would support the welfare-to-billionaires tax cut. They fairly stampeded to support the Patriot Act and the presidential war authorization �with John Kerry, John Edwards, and Hillary Clinton at the front of the pack. The party had become so neutered that Al From and others from the Democratic Leadership Council called Howard Dean an extremist for daring to say what everyone is now saying about the war with Iraq�that it was precipitate, overhyped, and underprepared, more likely to separate us from the friends needed to fight terrorists than to end terrorism.

What would have happened had Clinton resigned? Gore would have been given “honeymoon” in which he could have played with a stronger hand all the initiatives Clinton ha begun, unashamed of them and able to bring them fresh energy. That is what happened whe Lyndon Johnson succeeded John Kennedy. Clinton himself may have reaped a redeemin admiration for what he had sacrificed to recover his honor. Before him would have lain all th opportunities he has now, and more. Hillary Clinton’s support of him in this act of real contritio would have looked nobler. Clinton’s followers were claiming that it was all and only about sex Clinton could have said, “Since that is what it is about, I’ll step aside so more important things ca be addressed.” All the other phony issues Starr had raised would have fallen of their ow insubstantiality

Of course, this is just one of many what-ifs about the Clinton presidency. By chance I saw a revival of Leonard Bernstein’s musical Wonderful Town, just before getting my copy of the Clinton book. All through the 957 pages of it, a song from the show kept running through my head: “What a waste! What a waste!”

Gary Wills writing in the New York Review of Books on Bill Clinton’s biography

Chi chi frou frou

by

I tried picking up some regular groceries at three lovely yet pricey new delis/grocery shops within three blocks of me, two of them just days or weeks old. The newest one, Olivia’s, is tucked away on Wabansia a few steps west of Damen. It’s very convenient and carries perishables (produce, milk, eggs) and some essentials, like soap. The Goddess & Grocer, which replaced Zoom Kitchen, has been open for a few weeks; it’s a sandwich & salad deli with a selection of groceries to match. (Sandwiches average $8.) Down North is Cooking Fools, which is even more of a deli with a very limited selection of dry goods.

However, the prices!

Anchovy paste: $1.89
One chunk fresh mozzarella: $4.29*
Two beefsteak tomatoes: $1.70*
Quart of peanut butter ice cream: $6.49*
Half gallon organic milk: $4.89*
Dozen eggs: $4.49*
Baked tofu: $5.69*
Red pepper powder: $2.89*
Quart of yogurt: $3.99*
Small box of cookies: $2.99
Box of biscuits: $3.99
Bag of granola: $6*

As much as I like the idea of shopping locally (and yes, the * indicates high quality products from Illinois, Wisconsin, or Iowa), I really can’t keep this up; even Whole Foods looks like a bargain. Yet the usual corner stores carry only liquor, cigarettes, and the usual selection of processed food. Well, I suppose I’ll keep going to Clybourn for Trader Joe’s, then.

And to think that I thought Zoom Kitchen was pricey when it first opened. (That didn’t keep me from running up from downtown after work for a portabella sandwich, then returning to Hyde Park.)

High Line architects selected

by

“Otis White”:http://www.governing.com/notebook/today.htm calls the High Line project “ingenious and delightful.”

From “the Times”:http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/12/arts/design/12high.html

Nonetheless, the selection marks a critical step in one of the most compelling urban planning initiatives in the city’s recent history. The preliminary design succeeds in preserving the High Line’s tough industrial character without sentimentalizing it. Instead, it creates a seamless blend of new and old, one rooted in the themes of decay and renewal that have long captivated the imagination of urban thinkers.

Perhaps more important, the design confirms that even in a real estate climate dominated by big development teams and celebrity architects, thoughtful, creative planning ideas — initiated at the grass-roots level — can lead to startlingly original results. As the process continues, the issue will be whether the project’s advocates can maintain such standards in the face of increasing commercial pressures…

Such issues can easily be corrected as the design process unfolds. But they point to what may ultimately be the greatest threat to the project’s success: regulating access to the site. The High Line has already begun to spark the interest of developers, who understand its potential as an agent for raising real estate values… In an effort to take advantage of that interest, city planners have envisioned a series of incentives that would reward developers who include public access to the High Line in their plans. The scheme would also allow developers to connect commercial ventures directly to the gardens, which could radically alter the nature of the project. At the same time, allowing those who own properties below the High Line to relocate creates the possibility of freeing portions of the High Line from the surrounding density.

Urban treasure: speakeasies

by

Nina Simonds, in the Times’ food section, describes a series of “speakeasies,” or tiny, limited-menu restaurants set up in nontraditional spaces — art galleries or even people’s apartments.

A Hong Kong friend who is an avid foodie took me to Mum Chau’s Sichuan Kitchen, which is definitely an insider’s type of place — just one room in an undistinguished apartment building at the top of D’Aguilar Street in the heart of Hong Kong. A colorful but discreet red sign reads, “Mum Chau’s Sichuan Kitchen, Members Only,” in Chinese and English. Lunch is served promptly from noon until two, first come first served, and tables fill almost immediately, as word has spread of its superb but simple Sichuan-style fare. Dinner is by reservation.

Mum Chau’s specialties are homemade dumplings and hand-thrown noodles, but she also offers other traditional items. To order, customers are given a small yellow paper menu in Chinese and asked to tick off their choices. (You can go to other people’s tables and point if you are stumped.)

I’m not sure whether it’s a trend or not, but I like the notion of less choice when eating out. Restaurants with set, prix-fixe menus — from palaces like Charlie Trotter’s or French Laundry down to homey spots like Savoy Truffle — express and highlight their owners’ or chef’s unique background and talents, which are increasingly worth seeking out in a world with ever more (but ever more bland and processed) dining options.

Of course, these speakeasies could only thrive in Hong Kong: tightly packed, rolling around in money, in love with food, gossipy, and freewheeling in the ways of regulation.

Time for more SUV regulation

by

Gregg Easterbrook in The New Republic makes the great case for more regulation of SUVs in the name of public health, safety, and welfare:

Perhaps the most tiresome defense of the SUV is, “No one can tell me what I can drive.” But, of course, government can tell you what you can drive and has been doing so for years. The Bill of Rights creates two specially protected areas of possessions: militia arms and just about anything — newspapers, magazines, books, movies, tickets to live performances — connected with political or artistic expression. But there’s no constitutional right to own devices society thinks you shouldn’t have (burglar tools, for example) or substances society thinks you shouldn’t have (dynamite, anthrax spores) or to operate machines that pose threats to others (you need a license to fly a plane or drive a bulldozer, and these licenses are hard to obtain). All kinds of products and purchases are regulated by law, and courts generally uphold such laws so long as they are reasonably related to the public good. The idea that there’s a right to own a monstrous personal conveyance that wastes gasoline, causes road rage, and, most significantly from the public-good standpoint, increases traffic fatalities, is nonsense…

If you wanted to buy a Hummer or an Escalade, put it up on blocks in your backyard, and use it for parties, that would be nobody’s business but your own. If you want to drive that vehicle on public roads, creating peril for others, then it becomes the public’s business. All kinds of rules have been passed regarding what can be operated on public roads, and courts have upheld these rules. In the cases of SUVs and pickup trucks, Congress has simply failed to enact adequate rules.

In fact, as some have observed, the SUV’s ubiquity is more because of, not in spite of, government regulation. As Joseph White recently noted in the Wall Street Journal:

For more than a decade, a growing number of families have opted for an SUV to carry themselves and all their gear from place to place, and government policies abetted that shift. Now the government’s safety messages are sending a signal to families that they would be better off to go back to being securely belted into the seats of large station wagons. Still, because of earlier regulatory decisions and marketing decisions made years ago, SUVs are more plentiful — and have better deals to offer — than big crossover wagons.

Just raising fuel economy by one-third could eliminate U.S. oil imports from the Persian Gulf within ten years, and that’s possible not only using existing technology, but with the same kind of technological gains we’ve seen in recent years, albeit directed to private and not public gain:

auto and SUV engines have gotten much more efficient in the last two decades, it’s just that all the engineering improvements have gone into higher horsepower and more weight, not into MPG. From 1981 to 2003 [according to the EPA (pdf)], average horsepower of new vehicles rose 93 percent, average weight rose 24 percent, average zero-to-60 acceleration rose 29 percent, and mileage rose 1 percent.

And that improved acceleration, coupled with improved brakes, has just led to more aggressive driving: more speeding, more sudden stops and jackrabbit starts, more cutting off, more freeway tailgating at 100 mph. 0 to 60 in six seconds used to be reserved for Formula One. Today’s Toyota Camry does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds; a 1970 Ford Mustang Mach 1 Cobra Jet 428 took 5.7, with a then-stunning 335 hp under the hood. What’s more, only 3,500 Cobra Jets were ever made; contrast that to the half-million Camrys sold in America every year. Meanwhile, the 2008 Porsche Cayenne Turbo has an astonishing 500 horses, moving its 5,000 pounds from 0 to 60 in 4.9 seconds.

This horsepower explosion has serious implications for urban traffic design as well. The proliferation of stop signs throughout Chicago, for instance, is a half-assed attempt at traffic calming, to keep people from using their newfound automotive superpower to careen through neighborhoods at 50 mph — or to blatantly ignore crosswalks on arterials. Yet, all vehicles are expected to abide by the letter of these regulations, even if the traffic-calming spirit (or purpose) of the law is on their side.

The Model T had 20 horsepower; a bicyclist averages about 0.5. Is there any logic to the idea that these vehicles have the capacity, much less the obligation, to abide by the same rules that apply to vehicles ten or a hundred times more powerful, or with five or fifty times more mass and almost a thousand times more momentum?

Crazy!

by

Or, as a recent Weekly Standard article put it, his slogan should be “Crazy Times Demand a Crazy Senator”:

The new Illinois Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, Maryland activist Alan Keyes, may be most famous for his most liberal act: jumping into a mosh pit while Rage Against the Machine performed, body-surfing the crowd, and exchanging body slams with a spiky-haired teen as a means of getting filmmaker Michael Moore’s endorsement for president in 2000. As Moore put it, “We knew Alan Keyes was insane. We just didn’t know how insane until that moment.”

Keyes has an apocalyptic view of America’s future unless it repents: “I do stay up at night thinking about what’s going to happen to America. I do stay up at night with a vision of our people in conflict, of our cities in flames, of our economy in ruins.”

– John K. Wilson, formerly notorious within the narrow confines of Hyde Park for his beard, in the Illinois Times

More boat commutes

by

Two recent real estate profiles in the Times have profiled folks who use boats to get to their waterfront weekend/summer houses. Moving over water is typically more energy efficient than moving over land, and many prime destinations front onto navigable waterways. Improved water quality, the dramatic decline in other water traffic as less freight moves by boat, and waterfront residential and commercial development have also all moving out onto the water a logical next step. Plus, a bit of seafaring can lend a bit of excitement to an otherwise uneventful commute.

Of course, thousands of commuters take ferries into New York or Seattle every day. But the weekend getaway, whether house, camp, or B&B, has strayed from its 19th-century roots as a far-flung ring of railroad resorts beyond the commuter belt and become all but inaccessible to the car-free. Perhaps this was inevitable; mass transit, by definition, needs urban densities (i.e., mass) to survive. But infrequent ferries (after all, you’re on vacation — what’s the rush?) and relatively more compact resort planning could cut Friday evening traffic jams and help resort towns grow more sustainably.

For Stephen Goodman and Lisa Wolford, a fifteen-minute stroll and a catamaran ferry make for an intentionally car-free urban escape; for Chris Sieber and Kevin Burrows, a rowboat (albeit after a 40-mile drive from the city).

The perfect SUV

by

Speaking of greenwashing, some folks in Savannah have built a “green Hummer.”

“In advertising, cities are lifeless, cars are safe, drivers are happy, gas is clean, and you are not responsible whatsoever for traffic, pollution, your weight, the marring of our landscapes, or war.

“Our SUV is for the real world.”

Oh, and instead of carrying 1/3 of its weight, this Hummer can carry 3/1 of its weight!

[btw, just checked the site traffic reports and West North has passed 100,000 page requests since the launch in December. I have no idea who all these people are, but thanks for reading!]

Green McMansions?

by

Salon has a story about greenwashed monster houses:

The American proclivity for living large does more than raise questions about whether a 4,000-square-foot single family home should ever qualify as a “green” residence. It also calls into question one of the fundamental tenets of sustainability — that market demand for green products and technologies will save us from environmental apocalypse. If we all go solar, if we install rainwater catchment systems and use sustainably harvested lumber, so the logic goes, then there’s no need to deprive ourselves of the luxuries that space — and the furniture and accessories to fill it — affords. But the issue of consumption, not to mention overconsumption, is curiously absent from the sustainability discourse. And in an era characterized by unprecedented consumer wealth, this could be the movement’s fatal flaw.

Author Linda Baker even addresses McDonough’s “eco-effective” argument and the cherry-tree metaphor. Well, sure, but until we do have a broad range of materials which have zero or net-positive environmental impact, improving efficiency and reducing consumption will still be important strategies for managing environmental impacts. In the meantime, what green designers should be doing to improve their eco-effectiveness is to follow the dictums of books like “The Not So Big House”: help their clients understand that bigger or more is not always better, and that thoughtful design solutions can help them do more with less.

In a cheeky quote, architect George Ostrow, principal of Seattle’s Velocipede Architects, compares the “green” McMansion to the hybrid SUV: greenwashed contradictions, odd expressions of a society raised to believe that hyperconsumption will solve all ills. Overconsumption causing environmental problems? Well, the solution is the same: buy some more stuff!

Interestingly, the article concludes with a look at modern modular housing, which for now is mostly wishful thinking but seems poised to take off.