Thanks to some thoughtful and astute gift-givers . . .

. . . for a topically relevant Christmas present - Bicycle Diaries!  I'm only a few pages in, but I can already tell that Byrne has a unique perspective on urban sociology and city planning, all generated through his bike commuting in cities across the globe.

See previous posts "Cities for Cycling" and its follow-up.

Dealing with THAT holiday issue . . .

As our first Christmas as parents approached this holiday season, my wife and I have been thinking about how we want to deal the Santa Claus issue.  The decision is a delicate one, thanks in no small part to the diversity of the popular options.  There are, of course, the two extremes.  On one hand is the full-on, red-clad, bearded Santa with a weight problem and a team of magic ruminants.  Despite his husky waistline, magic Santa finds his way down chimneys of all shapes and sizes but manages to never burn himself on the odd glowing ember that doubtless remains in some homes from a hearty Christmas Eve fire.  He also carries a bag big enough (and rides in a sleigh big enough) to hold gifts for each and every child in the world.  Well, for each "nice" child, anyway.  Despite some blatant logic gaps, this Santa Claus option has worked well enough for many people over the years.

The other extreme is, obviously, No Santa.  While this option lacks the logic problems and seeming implausibilities that plague Santa, it is far from clean and simple, for one primary reason.  No one wants his kid to be the one that pontificates to his first-grade class:

"Well, my Daddy says that Santa Claus is not real.  Moreover, my Daddy says that the concept of Santa Claus as portrayed particularly in the United States is both illogical and implausible.  Flying reindeer?  Come on, people!  Yes, we're only six, but are we idiots?  Squeezing that fat butt down a chimney?  Have you looked at how wide your chimney is?  Two words, three syllables - lo-gic gap."

I do not (and should not) have to say anymore for you to get the idea that while No Santa might technically be closer to absolute truth, its complication arises from contradiction of socially validated knowledge.

So neither Santa nor No Santa are the ideal option.  There is certainly a spectrum of compromise between the two as well as a host of new alternatives such as The Elf on the Shelf, which some friends have used with success.  I think, though, that ultimately I will formulate a response that takes the high road on the personal application of Santa principles to our child(ren).  The response would also give my kid the chance to show that he is not only aware of relevant political and social issues but also prematurely burdened by the problems plaguing global society.  The response begins with a simple yet powerful foundational assumption.

Santa finally lost the battle against exponential population growth.  I imagine this discussion going something like this:

"Look, son, the reason Santa can't visit our house has nothing to do with you.  I promise.  The explanation is simple.  Do you know what the global population is?  As of December 22, 2009, it was estimated to be 6,791,500,000.  And in 2006, almost 30% of that population was under the age of 15.  So, that's over 2 billion children that Santa has to visit . . .  

The Naughty List?  Does Santa even use that thing anymore?  I don't think so.  

No . . . no . . . look, that's 2 billion children to visit in one night.  And those are old statistics.  No magic reindeer, not even with extra rocket propulsion (see Elf), can cover that much air space in one night.  Christmas's long night due to its proximity to the winter solstice doesn't even help Santa that much anymore.  

What's that?  You ask if Santa doesn't use the Naughty List, how does he choose who to visit?  Hmmm, well, it's, you know, a variety of factors.  

Are they equally weighted or a balancing test?  It depends.  Why don't you ask your Mom.  All I know is that the overpopulation of the earth is causing dire problems beyond nutritive food shortages, water crises, over-exploitation of resources, and climate change.  

Yes, you can still write a letter to Santa and wish him luck with the population problem.  

And, yes, we can CC the President as well."

That foundation sets the stage for use of any number deciding factors that have absolutely nothing to do with a child's personal responsibility, such as:

(Aside: Are you starting to see what kind of grave you dig for yourself with this whole Santa business?)

Santa only visits children in countries that are taking affirmative action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.  I thought about going with a "Santa only visits children who are actively reducing their carbon footprints" explanation, but that only creates another incarnation of the Naughty-Nice List, and that's not what I am looking for.  But putting the burden on national governments relieves the pressure of assigning a Naughty or Nice designation to your own child.

Its not unlike this Saturday Night Live Blue State Santa cartoon.  In this scenario, children suffer from the ignorance and poor judgment of their jurisdiction's voters.  Their own naughty behavior, if we would even call it that, has nothing to do with Santa's absenteeism.  There are a host of people for children to blame for Kris Kringle's truancy, aside from themselves, of course.  Government officials, voters, even parents are fair game.

Other versions of this Santa explanation could revolve around progressive health care schemes, transportation policy, etc.  The choices are endless, you can pick your favorite pet issue, and you can foster some socially conscious discussion around the Christmas dinner table.  Win-win-win.

Fortunately for me (and my son), he's not old enough this Christmas to require a Santa explanation.  That gives me another 11 months or so to iron out the wrinkles.  Or to come up with something better entirely.  One or the other.

"Climate change e-mail scandal underscores myth of pure science"

From December 16th's L.A. Times.

Very good read and worth your time.

The authors remind us that using science to make political decisions is just as dangerous as using politics to make decisions in which science is needed.  Some selections:

"The real scandal illustrated by the e-mails is not that scientists tried to undermine peer review, fudge and conceal data, and torpedo competitors, but that scientists and advocates on both sides of the climate debate continue to claim political authority derived from a false ideal of pure science. This charade is a disservice to both science and democracy. To science, because the reality cannot live up to the myth; to democracy, because the difficult political choices created by the genuine but also uncertain threat of climate change are concealed by the scientific debate."

"That myth has allowed politicians to shirk their responsibility to be clear about the values, interests and beliefs that underpin their preferences and choices about science and policy. Better to recognize that decision-makers, depending on their political beliefs, will weigh the evidence and risks of climate change differently when evaluating policy options. Their choices will influence the distribution of benefits and costs, and will have varying and uncertain prospects for success. Voters should evaluate the decisions on that basis, rather than on the false notion that science is dictating the choices."

"The choices are extraordinarily difficult; the costs of action, and inaction, are potentially momentous. No one can know what the "right" decisions will be, but the e-mail controversy reminds us that imperfect people, not pure science, must decide that question. This is a job for democratic politics, informed by, but not shackled to, a pluralistic, insightful and imperfect scientific enterprise."

A Bicycling Follow-Up

I would be remiss if I did not follow up today's earlier post with this report preliminarily indicating a decline in Portland's bike use.  This article from Willamette Week hints that Portland's focus support of bike commuting may not produce all roses and sunshine and that the investment in bicycle infrastructure is at the expense of basic maintenance of other transportation infrastructure.  Once again, these are preliminary results, but it could signal a step back for bike commuting if the country's top bike city is sliding.

Cities for Cycling

"Why, indeed, would people endure stifling traffic just to hop on another form of transportation that goes nowhere? How is this not similar to walking around outside without a coat while complaining of the chill? What are people thinking? Children can’t get to school on their own, while childhood obesity skyrockets. Yet the evident solution to bicyclists, as simple as putting on the sweater, is simply to ride to school. Yet few do."

"Why can’t people cycle in the numbers common in many European cities? Blumenauer and Byrne know why: bicycle infrastructure. We don’t have enough of it, at least outside Blumenauer’s hometown of Portland, Oregon. Its residents drive 30% less than in Houston, the Congressman said. They spend $2,500 less per year on transportation than the national average, and keep that money in the local economy instead of sending it overseas in oil payments. According to Blumenauer, Portland’s bicycle share has increased 400% for less than the cost of one mile of freeway."

These selections are from a piece by David Alpert, "Cities and Cycling: Ignoring a Simple Alternative," that appeared on Next American City's website.  Updating the United State's transportation profile has been a focus of the Obama administration.  Or at least it had been before . . . well, you know.  But for all the focus on rail, bus rapid transit, and other forms of mass movement, I think two alternatives do not get their fair share of recognition - walking and bicycling.  As Alpert points out and I certainly recognize, walking and biking do require some investment in infrastructure to make them viable, comfortable, and convenient transportation options.  But as his Portland statistics make clear, they are certainly less expensive than mass transit options (including roads), and in these economic times, that factor should certainly not be ignored.

Alpert's thoughts also address a larger problem that is not easy to address.  Many of the large cities in the United States that developed later in time - i.e., large cities beyond the east coast - are designed to accomodate auto-driven life.  This is not a characteristic of many of the European cities held up as bicycling models simply because, due to their age, these cities are planned and laid out for pedestrians and other non-motorized movement.  So while investment in bicycle infrastructure or pedestrian-friendly design could provide options to some cities, the reality is that some American cities just are not suited to bike and foot commuting.  Even in those cities, though, I do believe we will continue to see more compact, self-sufficient neighborhoods and developments that give residents the choice to be car-free at times.

A few noteworthy links to round out the discussion:

- Congressional Bike Caucus: see if your local House and Senate representatives are members.

- "Cities for Cycling is a project of the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to catalog, promote and implement the world's best bicycle transportation practices in  American municipalities."

- Bonus link: If you like adventure stories, this one is for you.  Hear the trials, tribulations, successes and failures of one determined bus-bike commuter in the U.S.  (The bike story picks up about half way through the podcast.)

 

More on Denver's Living Streets Initiative

A few weeks ago, I blogged critically about the perspective of a Denver Post opinion writer regarding Denver's Living Streets initiative.  Now the co-chair of Living Streets has responded as well.  His brief letter to the editor raises some of the same objections to Carroll's column that I did. 

A Thought About Climategate

As the "ClimateGate" situation continues to unfold, there is one reason in particular why this whole hot mess troubles and disappoints me.  As I described to a friend earlier this week, not only has ClimateGate brought into question some knowledge or theory that some of us believed to be truth, it has also cast doubt on the very reasons why we believe what we believe.  As Ilya Somin writes on the Volokh Conspiracy blog, I think we often forget how much "truth" relies on social validation.  The fact that ClimateGate involves scientific knowledge makes the social validation proposition that much more troubling.  I - and I think there are others who agreed with me on this point - believe science to be one of the few terrestrial sources of truth, or something close to it.  I believe this because, while science certainly relies on theory, it strives to validate theory through data.  And, unlike words, numbers are not subject to interpretation.  Five is five - upside down or inside out.  The fickle and fleeting nature of words' meaning is famously illustrated by statements like "It depends on what the definition of 'is' is."  Thus, when circumstances cast doubt on the reliability of numbers, I start to notice little beads of sweat on my brow.

 

Same Bat Time, Same Bat Channel, New Bat Name

Change is good. 

In that vein, I have decided to re-title my effort here.  I think the new title reflects my feelings about where (I think) I sit ideologically at this time and what (I think) I am trying to express here.  I believe the revolution of our time will come (and must come) not from the right or the left but from the center.  It will be a revolution fueled by ideal and conviction but driven by pragmatism and practicality.  It values progress and realizes that, while ideology is necessary, it must yield to the common good.

Maybe that in itself is idealistic, but we have to start somewhere.