This is Mission Critical

The best part about $4.10/gallon gasoline is there are significantly fewer cars on the road this month.  If I chose to not drive to work I would have to rely on two metro lines and a bus route, and still walk about 4 blocks on each end.  That’s too many variables, so I choose to drive.

My morning commute in the summer usually takes more than 30 minutes because of the tourists on the road, but I’ve been getting to work in under 25 minutes for the past few weeks.

High gas prices, it seems, are the quickest cure for road congestion.  Although I’m sure many of the people not driving are locals who are now using public transportation, so I would probably be less thrilled if I had been taking the metro to work everyday.  Given the predictions of $5.00/gallon or even $6.00/gallon by the end of the summer, it will only get worse (for the metro riders).

There is a big push among the independent retailers in the District to get people to shop at local stores instead of big chains. Until recently, non-auto-owning DC residents had little choice (for many consumer goods at least). But in the last decade or so, Bed Bath and Beyond, Macy’s and now Target have come into play, taking away customers from the smaller stores.

There are many virtues to small businesses, but telling me I am hurting the local economy by shopping at big stores instead of small chains is more than a bit disingenuous. How many jobs, and how much tax money is Target going to bring into the community? To suggest that only small business create local prosperity is wrong.

As Virginia Postrel notes in this excellent article defending chain stores, the argument that big stores destroy local character is also largely overblown, and missing the point of what communities actually are:

Stores don’t give places their character. Terrain and weather and culture do. Familiar retailers may take some of the discovery out of travel-to the consternation of journalists looking for obvious local color-but by holding some of the commercial background constant, chains make it easier to discern the real differences that define a place: the way, for instance, that people in Chandler come out to enjoy the summer twilight, when the sky glows purple and the dry air cools.

Big chain stores also drive innovation faster than a small group of local stores ever would:

They rapidly spread economic discovery-the scarce and costly knowledge of what retail concepts and operational innovations actually work. That knowledge can be gained only through the expensive and time-consuming process of trial and error. Expecting each town to independently invent every new business is a prescription for real monotony, at least for the locals.

Postrel also notes how city planners are very hesitant to invite big chain stores into their cities, even at the cost of losing customers, and tax dollars, to the suburbs:

The planning consultant Robert Gibbs works with cities that want to revive their downtowns, and he also helps developers find space for retailers. To his frustration, he finds that many cities actually turn away national chains, preferring a moribund downtown that seems authentically local. But, he says, the same local activists who oppose chains “want specialty retail that sells exactly what the chains sell-the same price, the same fit, the same qualities, the same sizes, the same brands, even.” You can show people pictures of a Pottery Barn with nothing but the name changed, he says, and they’ll love the store.

There has been a backlash against chain stores that Postrel thinks has at least a little bit to do with snobbery from the self described “cosmopolitan” city residents:

Chains make a large range of choices available in more places. They increase local variety, even as they reduce the differences from place to place. People who mostly stay put get to have experiences once available only to frequent travelers, and this loss of exclusivity is one reason why frequent travelers are the ones who complain.

There is definitely a place for small businesses in our country and the city. While large scale innovation is easier at a large corporate level, small companies can be much more agile and quick to respond to changing consumer demands because they lack the bureaucracy and red tape present in just about all large companies. And most now big companies started out as small companies. Before it took over the world, Starbucks was just another humble Pacific Northwest coffeehouse.

If a small store can offer me a better (or cheaper) product than a big chain, I will definitely shop there. I choose to walk past the Starbucks in my neighborhood to a local coffeeshop. Not because I feel obligated to not support the mainstream coffee conglomeration, but because I like the taste of their coffee better.

And on the subject of coffee, what company has done more for marketing fair trade products than Starbucks? How many people has Starbucks introduced to sustainability and fair practices with farmers? Why does the Fair Trade movement continue to demonize a company that has done more free marketing for them than they could ever do on their own?

I don’t begrudge the “shop local” movement or the people who choose local stores over big chains. One day if I am a local store owner I will hope people will choose me over the big chains. But I will hope people are shopping at my store because it is more beneficial to them than my big store competition, not as some sort of pity payment.

What is the proper way to handle those sometimes annoying people on the street who want to tell you about the poor children in Africa/India/China/Peru/etc who will die if you don’t sign up with their organization and pledge to contribute less than the cost of a cup of coffee a day?

One of these guys stopped me yesterday while I was downtown and I politely told him I did not feel comfortable leaving my credit card information on piece of paper in a stranger’s hand in city like Washington DC. He seemed upset. So I asked him if his organization had a website I could look at, which he gave to me, then very sarcastically apologized for wasting my time.

Last year, I was walking with my girlfriend and one person stopped us and actually showed us pictures of different kids and said that the kids with the older, more worn pictures were actually in more danger because their pictures were not as glossy as some of the others. Apparently people don’t like to “adopt” the kids with the wrinkly pictures, and we would be extra responsible for the demise of these kids because we were their last best hope. Again, when asked about the website she acknowledged it existed, but suggested we give her the pledge now then cancel online later if we don’t like what see on the website. A better sales approach, to be sure, but it was still not going to happen.

These encounters have made me wonder: What is the proper etiquette for this type of situation? Is it less rude to blow by them, or to stop and listen even when you have no intention of giving them money?

This theory was recently explained to me by a coworker. (Full disclosure: this coworker is black, and his idea of this theory only dealt with other black people. But I think it goes beyond race.) I will occasionally hear him mutter “like crabs in a barrel,” and I will know someone just tried to screw him over on something.

Imagine a big, disgusting barrel of crabs, about to be cooked. What happens to a crab that gets to the top and is about to climb out of the barrel? Inevitably, one of the other crabs will grab it and pull it back down right as it is about to escape to freedom.

This theory says there are two types of friends: the ones who are happy for you when good things happen, and the ones who pull you back into the barrel. The trick is figuring out which friends are the crabs.

I have definitely seen this several times in my life; something good happens to someone and the people you would expect to be most supportive are secretly plotting how to bring the person back down to their level. Stupid people.

We have been gone for about two months. We have no real excuse other than laziness and apathy. Work has not been particularly grueling. But an interesting thing happened while we were away: people started coming to our blog.

The chart above shows the number of hits on our blog each month of its existence. You will note that the last post I wrote was the last day of February. You will also note the dramatic increase in readership since then. What has happened to cause this? Are people belatedly figuring out the greatness of our work? That’s what happens to most artists. But no, its much more simple than that. The reason we have gotten so many hits is twofold: (1) guns, and (2) breasts. Two posts on this blog are generating the vast majority of the hits. One post Andy wrote about gun laws in Michigan, and one I wrote about the decline in food knowledge at the Food Network. Apparently people like guns, and they like pictures of Giada De Laurentiis’ chest. Fun fact: Giada recently gave birth. I would post pictures of her pregnant here, but out of fear of the readership we would pick up, I will pass.

Anyway, the Cliffs Notes version of this post is that I decided it was time to start writing again. I’ve seen a lot of stuff that has annoyed me, and quite frankly, I enjoy complaining about stuff on this blog. So stay tuned for some updates. I can’t speak for Andy, but cross your fingers that he will come back too. Unless you hate him. Then cross your fingers that his pink eye renders him permanently illiterate.

I’ve been preoccupied by “work” lately and have not been good about posting. (Andy is working from and still not posting; obviously I am busy, and he is lazy.)

I still see things all the time I want to write about but don’t have the time to sit down and write full blog posts about them. So here’s a recap of what you didn’t get to read this week:

1. On the radio this morning, a news story was talking about bullying in Maryland schools. A parent also expressed his concerns over “the YouTubes” [sic] that kids use online to bully each other. In theory it’s a valid point - internet bullying is bad. But the way he said it reminded me of Tracy Jordan, or George Bush:

2. If you are not already doing so, you should be reading Stuff White People Like. It is hilarious. See how many things you can relate to, or how many you can assign to a friend. An exceprt from a recent post:

#75 Threatening to Move to Canada

Often times, white people get frustrated with the state of their country. They do not like the President, or Congress, or the health care system, or the illegal status of Marijuana. Whenever they are presented with a situation that seems unreasonable to them, their first instinct is to threaten to move to Canada.

For example, if you are watching TV with white people and there is a piece on the news about that they do not agree with, they are likely to declare “ok, that’s it, I’m moving to Canada.”

Though they will never actually move to Canada, the act of declaring that they are willing to undertake the journey is very symbolic in white culture. It shows that their dedication to their lifestyle and beliefs are so strong, that they would consider packing up their entire lives and moving to a country that is only slightly similar to the one they live in now.

At a work dinner this week, I counted seven things from list in one story told by a recent Georgetown graduate. Top that.

3. Holy crap the dollar keeps getting worse. $1.51 for one Euro. When I studied abroad it hit $1.30 for the first time and everyone thought that was super high. If you had at least $10,000 lying around you didn’t know what to do with but wanted it to be slightly liquid, you could do worse than putting it in a foreign currency denominated CD. The interest plus the appreciation of the currency on the USD would make for a nice return. Unless the dollar rebounds. HAHAHAHA.

4. I finally got a DC license and tags. A warning from the DC police is a real motivator. Although Arlington is considering passing a law that fines those who move to the state and don’t change their plate $100 per year. Coming from Ohio, you would be better off just taking the fine, than paying all the VA transfer fees and increased insurance costs. Why doesn’t DC do that? I could pay the $100 and then not feel guilty about having OH plates two years after I moved out of the state.

5. DC social service workers who failed to figure out that a woman was crazy before she allegedly killed her four daughters. Mayor Fenty subsequently fired the workers. They appealed and were reinstated. Now Fenty basically said he will fire them again, and he gets the last word. The workers vowed to keep appealing his ruling. How unqualified for their job does a government worker have to be before they can get fired? If gross negligence and/or incompetence that lead to the death of four children is not enough, what is?

6. For those of you who love dogs and funny pictures of them, the creators of I Can Has Cheezburger have created a canine version, I Can Has A Hot Dog. Like most spinoffs, it is not quite as funny as the original, but they are getting there.

That is all.

This article discusses a speech Obama gave earlier this month without the use of a Teleprompter. I remember hearing earlier in the election season that Obama was the only one who consistently used a Teleprompter when giving speeches. Obama speaking without a Teleprompter is disappointing compared to his usual performances. I always found his speeches to be generally uplifting and hopeful, if devoid of an acceptable level of detail on any particular issue. This time around, not so much. Here is a link to the video if you want to watch it yourself (I have only seen parts of it myself, but from what I saw I was not impressed). The author of the article, a conservative Obama fan, writes:

What was especially noteworthy about his Virginia speech were the diversions Obama took from the prepared text. Because of Obama’s improvised moments, this speech was different than the usual fare he offers. We didn’t get the normal dosages of post-partisanship or even “elevation.” Virtually every time Obama deviated from the text, he expressed the partisan anger that has so poisoned the Democratic party. His spontaneous comments eschewed the conciliatory and optimistic tone that has made the Obama campaign such a phenomenon. It looked like the spirit of John Edwards or Howard Dean had possessed Obama every time he vamped.

What makes Obama’s Jefferson-Jackson speech especially relevant is where he went when he went off script. The unifying Obama who has impressed so many people during this campaign season vanished, replaced by just another angry liberal railing against George W. Bush, Karl Rove, Exxon Mobil, and other long standing Democratic piñatas. The pressing question that Obama’s decidedly uninspiring Jefferson-Jackson oratory raises is which Obama is the real Obama–the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?

Obama and Clinton are very similar when it comes to most policy positions. Obama’s major appeal to me over Clinton is that he will move beyond typical partisan politics. If this unscripted moment is any indication of how Obama really will be as a president, then he loses that advantage over her.

(Sidebar: MS Office and WordPess do not recognize “Barack” or “Obama” as real words. How can we have a president whose name by default has red squiggly lines underneath it? And when you type “Obama” MS Office recommends changing it to “Osama.” Does Bill Gates know something we don’t?)

Pun intended. If only people actually cared about D-DAY as much as they do this stupid consumerist “holiday”. Why do I hate Valentine’s Day? The answer is pretty simple, sophomoric, and perhaps even juvenile: because I’m supposed to like it. The fact that it’s a made up holiday to make people money doesn’t really bother me, that’s just capitalism. The fact that I’m single doesn’t make me especially sad today, I mean I’ve cried myself to sleep every night for the past 9 months so other than offing myself I’m not sure how much lower I could go. But yes, that’s still a viable option.

What does make me sad is this: Religious “activism” on behalf of a peaceful god carried out against your own people using suicide bombers you stole from a MENTAL HOSPITAL. Although this would be a great premise for a sequel to “The Ringer”.

Three cheers for whoever killed Mughniyeh. I mean he’ll just be immediatley replaced, but hopefully with someone who provides us lots of videos that we can put hilarious subtitles on and put up on YouTube.

I leave you with this:

This probably isn’t safe for work.

A recent study found that over their lifetime, obese people actually have less healthcare expenditures than non-obese people. Per year, obese people have more medical expenditures, but in general, they tend to die sooner than non-obese people.

Compared to smokers and obese people, the non-obese, non-smoking control group incurred the most lifetime medical costs, as they live longer and become more susceptible to expensive-to-treat diseases as they age.  The study concludes that:

Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

Translation:  Making people skinnier means they will live longer and incur increased lifetime medical expenditures relative to their obese contemporaries.  If no one was obese, our healthcare costs would go up because everyone would be living much longer.  Note this would likely also mean a huge Medicare cost increase, as we would have more seniors needing more treatments.

As Slate points out, the study left out any non-medical costs, such as productivity losses associated with dying younger or increased Social Security benefits for healthy seniors living longer.  It would be interesting to see an estimate that identifies and incorporates some of these costs.  Getting an accurate quantification of such costs would be very difficult, which is probably why the authors chose to focus only on explicit medical costs.

So while we can debate obesity as a public health issue, at least according to this study it is not a factor contributing to our country’s spiraling health care costs.

A new study on the environmental impact of ethanol production and use shows us very clearly the law of unintended effects at work.  The study shows that global reactions to ethanol production end up causing more carbon dioxide emissions than even widespread ethanol use would prevent.

The reasoning goes basically like this:  farmers in the US are receiving huge subsidies to produce corn for ethanol production.  As a result, less corn for human consumption is being produced in the US, increasing our reliance on foreign sources of agriculture.  The increase in demand is causing farmers around the world to up their food production.  So far so good.  Except that these farmers are using very inefficient means of food production, and are often times buring down forests (including rainforests) and other natural habitats to do so.

This burning (combined with the loss of those trees to absorb the carbon dioxide) results in a net increase in carbon dioxide output, even when you factor in the benefits of using ethanol instead of oil:

In fact, Searchinger’s group’s study, published online by Science magazine, shows those actions end up releasing huge amounts of carbon dioxide. The study finds that over a 30-year span, biofuels end up contributing twice as much carbon dioxide to the air as that amount of gasoline would, when you add in the global effects.

“Right now there’s little doubt that ethanol is making global warming worse,” Searchinger says.

This will create a good deal of controversy, of course, with the farmers who are set to financially benefit from ethanol attacking the study.  What will be interesting is how the true environmentalists take the study.  On one hand they will be reluctant to let go of what has become a fairly standard piece of their platform.  On the other hand, as people who care about the planet, they cannot just dismiss the study.

It appears the solution is not a magic bullet fuel, but rather a conscious, meaningful change in attitudes and behaviors of consumers here in the US and worldwide.  Which means until something catastrophic happens to force us to change our ways, we won’t.