. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Why Fish Need Bicycles (bought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
There's a wonderful column in the Press-Citizen this morning by D.J. Moser explaining why fish need bicycles. It's clever, well written, and analytically sound. It's reproduced at the bottom of this blog entry.
Do you recall the line from the 1970's: "A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle"?
My own realization that fish might actually need bicycles occurred during Iowa City's 1993 flood, while I was bicycling through the City Park. The sidewalk between the ball fields and the River had a couple of inches of water over it, so I was biking even slower than usual to minimize the water on the bike and myself. Looking down, I saw a fish on the sidewalk, alive but lying on its side, also making its way slowly along the path. As I looked at it I said to myself, "Now there's a fish that really does need a bicycle.
D.J.'s point is less frivolous, more related to the day's news -- as you'll see in a moment.
Anyhow, even though bike to work week is long passed, it caused me to Google myself and "bicycles" to see what I might have written on the subject.
Last December someone kindly uploaded a column of which I had no memory whatsoever, with the notation, "Federal Communications Commissioner Nicholas Johnson wrote this piece for the New York Times, Aug. 2, 1973." (They also nicely noted, in reference to my candidacy in the Iowa Third District congressional Democratic primary of 1974 -- following which Chuck Grassley won the general election to Congress -- "Imagine what the Senate might be like if Johnson beat Grassley back then.") Curious, I checked my online bibliography and lo and behold, there was the column. So I guess it is my writing, especially since there is a version of it in my book, Test Pattern for Living.
It's my take on how automobiles are like cigarettes. Because it refers to giving up smoking, I should probably quickly add in this anti-tobacco age that to the best of my memory I have never smoked a cigarette. (Unlike President Clinton, who smoked but didn't inhale, since I lived through a time when cigarette smoke was everywhere, I didn't smoke but did inhale!) The line does, however, reflect the true story of my father's path to giving up tobacco -- too late in his short life, as it turned out.
The column, reflecting the spirit of the 1970s, went like this:
"Bicycles are Model Citizens" The Bicycle -- It's Like Giving Up Smoking New York Times August 2, 1973, p. 35, col. 2.
I ride a bicycle. Not because I hate General Motors but haven't the courage to bomb an auto plant. I don't do it as a gesture of great stoicism and personal sacrifice.
I am not even engaged, necessarily, in an act of political protest over that company's responsibility for most of the air pollution tonnage in the United States.
It's like finally giving up cigarettes. You just wake up one morning and realize you don't want to start the day with another automobile.
Cigarette smoking is not a pleasure, it's a business. In the same say, you finally come to realize that you don't need General Motors, they need you. They need you to drive their cars for them. You are working for Detroit and paying them to do it. Automobiles are just a part of your life that's over, that's all.
No hard feelings. You've just moved on to something else. From now on, you just use their buses, taxis, and rental cars when they suit your convenience. You don't keep one for them that you have to house, feed and water, insure and care for.
You ride a bicycle because it feels good. The air feels good on your body; even the rain feels good. The blood starts moving around your body, and pretty soon it gets to your head, and, glory be, your head feels good.
You start noticing things. You look until you really see. You hear things, and smell smells you never knew were there. You start whistling nice little original tunes to suit the moment. Words start getting caught in the web of poetry in your mind.
And there's a nice feeling, too, in knowing you're doing a fundamental life thing for yourself: transportation. You got a little bit of your life back! And the thing you use is simple, functional, and relatively cheap.
You want one that fits you and rides smoothly, but with proper care and a few parts, it should last almost forever.
Your satisfaction comes from within you, and not from the envy or jealousy of others. (Although you are entitled to feel a little smug during rush hours, knowing you are also making better time than most of the people in cars.)
On those occasions when I am not able to cycle through the parks or along the [C&O] canal -- because the paths are rough with ice or muddy from rain or melting snow -- bicycling enables me to keep closer to the street people, folks waiting for buses or to cross streets, street sweepers, policemen, school "patrol," men unloading trucks.
Needless to say, you cannot claim any depth of understanding as a result of such momentary and chance encounters but by the time I get to the office I do somehow have the sense that I have a much better feeling for the mood of the city that day than if I had come to my office in a chauffeur-driven government limousine.
Although I am willing to brave the traffic and exhaust, I am aware it is dangerous. I think bicycles ought to be accorded a preferred position in the city's transportation system. At the very least, they deserve an even break.
Notice that bicycle riding also has some significant social advantages over the automobile. Cars unnecessarily kill sixty thousand people every year, permanently maim another one hundred and seventy thousand, and injure three and a half million more.
The automobile accounts for at least 66 percent of the total air pollution in the United States by tonnage -- as high as 85 percent in some urban areas -- and 91 percent of all-carbon monoxide pollution; it creates about nine hundred pounds of pollution for every person every year.
One million acres of land are paved each years, there is now a mile of road for each square mile of land. The concrete used in our Interstate Highway System would build six sidewalks to the moon.
Even so, everyone is familiar with the clogged streets and parking problems -- not to mention the unconscionable rates charged by the parking garages.
Automobile transportation is the largest single consumer of the resources used in our nation's total annual output of energy. It is an economic drain on consumers -- in no way aided by auto companies that deliberately build bumpers weaker than they were fifty years ago in order to contribute to an unnecessary bumper repair bill in excess of one billion dollars annually.
The bicycle is a model citizen, by comparison.
If you've read this far you will understand why D.J. Moser's column caught my eye and caused me to smile and applaud.
(Headlined, "If You Give a Fish a Bicycle," I couldn't help myself from playing with the thought: "Give a fish a bike ride and she can ride for a day; teach her how to ride a bicycle and she can ride for a lifetime." Something like that. Maybe you had to be there.)
Here is Moser's column.
(Because it is copyright, if either he or the Press-Citizen objects to my reproducing it in this context I will, of course, remove it.)
You've probably heard it said that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. This phrase has been around since the 1970s and is a variant of the earlier observation that man needs god like a fish needs a bicycle.
Without getting into such complex matters as feminine needs and religion -- neither of which I yet understand -- I think it's important to point out that fish do need bicycles and they need them badly. [Photo credit: Iowa City Press-Citizen.]
Which fish, you ask?
Well, for starters, the fish that are currently floundering around in the pool o' stank previously known as the Gulf of Mexico.
And what, exactly, are their biking needs? They need us to get off our cans, ride our bikes a little more, drive our cars a little less, and thereby reduce our reliance on fossil fuels.
Stop.
I know what you're thinking.
Here's another diatribe from one of those hyperintense, neon spandex-clad bikers who slow traffic by riding four abreast on Iowa City roads.
Not the case.
While I do believe that bikers and motorists must learn to share the road, and that choice of biking apparel is both personal and tricky, please know that I'm a regular guy who rides a 1999 mountain bike to work, using the bike lanes and wearing the baggiest clothes I can find.
But my question is this: "Why do so many people refuse, or not even give consideration to, riding their bike to work or on errands?"
Well, I've conducted my own unscientific poll and the answers are generally unconvincing.
• Biking takes too much time. Really? If you take various shortcuts and bike paths, I think you'll find that bike time and car time are actually pretty comparable in a city like ours. Not to mention the fact that you'll be multi-tasking by running your errand and getting some exercise at the same time.
• Biking makes me sweaty and gives me helmet-head. There are a couple options here. Some bike commuters choose to shower and change at work. It's actually pretty easy to do once you get in the routine. (Admittedly, this isn't an option available to everyone, but it is a choice that many simply fail to consider.)
As for helmet-head, just unbuckle and keep your helmet on as you do your shopping. Shoppers might stare at you, but they might be thinking how sporty and awesome you are.
• Biking's dangerous. Maybe so, but if you obey traffic laws and signs and use some common sense, you can greatly reduce your risk. I've crashed my bike twice in the past 10 years with nothing hurt but my pride.
Of course, there have been some nasty and even fatal car versus bike accidents, but plenty of people get hurt while driving or riding in cars, too. So be alert, be visible, and ride defensively, but don't let safety worries keep you off your bike.
• Bikes are expensive, uncomfortable and complicated. This is simply untrue. Many of us have one or more bikes getting dusty in the garage. Furthermore, there is an almost endless supply of affordable bikes available through sources such as Craigslist, eBay, the Iowa City Bike Library, etc.
As for being uncomfortable and complicated, bikes are getting more user-friendly every day. Take a look at any bike rack in town and you'll see that practical, comfortable bikes are all the rage.
Maybe you're already biking occasionally. If so, great job. Keep up the good work. But if you're using one of the above excuses, please reconsider. Just ride once this week -- just once -- and see how it goes.
You'll be giving the fish the bicycles they need while becoming less addicted to companies like BP.
Ride Baby Ride!
As you see, it all circles back to the prior blog entries linked from the top of this one.
You want to know what you can do about BP's pollution of the Gulf of Mexico.
Here's our suggestion. Think about it. _______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
The Sure-Fire Solution to Economic Pain (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com* -- and Saturday Night Live, see below)
My Dad told the story of a Kansas farmer who was asked whether he believed in baptism. "Why of course I do," he said, "I've seen it done."
That's kind of how I am about credit. I've seen it done. And all about me I'm now watching the consequences of its having been done. And that's why I really don't believe in credit.
Mason Williams (the composer of "Classical Gas" and one-time head writer for the "Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour") once wrote the story of the automobiles in his life, which he called his "Auto-biography."
In a similar spirit here is how I would describe my own "Auto-biography" of Nicholas Johnson.
My first car was a 20-year-old Model A Ford I bought from a local farmer for $25.
I paid cash.
My second car required saving money for a year as a college student. It was a much fancier Model A, with four doors and a roof, and therefore cost $75.
I paid cash.
Over the years the cars got grander and more expensive. A two-door Chevy ($700), a Volvo ($600), and a couple others along the way.
I paid cash.
My current vehicle is a 1978 VW camper van, one of my most expensive ever at $2000.
But I still paid cash.
Is this because I'm wealthy? No; quite the opposite. When offered job choices I've never simply picked the one that paid the most. I've chosen the ones that would offer the most interesting new experience, the most fun, or the greatest opportunity for public service -- one of which was serving on the local school board, a job I once described as providing "no money, but at least you get a lot of grief."
(Don't get me wrong, this is not a "pitty poor me" blog entry. I've been blessed at every turn in a life that could not have been better: my parents, growing up in Iowa City, the University's schools, from the two-year-old group at the Iowa Child Welfare Station on through University High School, a top flight public university undergraduate and law school education when tuition was $50 and a couple part-time jobs plus managing an apartment house were enough to get you by (compared with today's near-$50 thousand at private colleges, with the accompanying student loan debt), the lucky accidents of the U.S. Court of Appeals and Supreme Court clerkships, and three presidential appointments, and being able to return in my later years to my home town, live in the house where I grew up (on which the mortgage has long since been paid -- if indeed it was not purchased for cash), and welcomed into the UI College of Law, a three-block walk from home, where I live with a former high school classmate who is, for me, the perfect wife -- in addition to our wonderful children, grandchildren and now great-grandchildren. No; all I am saying is that I have, by choice, purchased cars for which I could afford to pay cash, rather than paying interest to a bank on a newer, more expensive one.)
No; I've paid cash because, in attempting to control living costs, the elimination of interest payments always seemed to me to involve the greatest returns for the least effort -- with the least pain.
I don't confess this as a badge of honor. I'm fully aware most Americans will ridicule my choices and think me a fool.
I merely mention it to give you some insight as to why I might be questioning the behavior and choices of those who propelled us into this global economic collapse -- and who now propose that the way out of the pit we're in is to go back to making more credit available, to recreate the economic structure and behavior that got us into this mess.
Why should every small business, home and automobile be owned in largest measure by a bank's shareholders? And for what? So we can have our stuff a few months before we'd have it if we saved first and then paid cash? Rented a few more years before buying a home? Drove a little older car?
Why should one of our largest expenses -- as taxpayers as well as consumers -- be the transfer of our hard-earned dollars (in the form of interest payments) to bankers and investors who have contributed neither goods nor services to our economy? Banks were getting "bailouts" from the federal government -- that is, you and me as taxpayers -- long before they brought down our economy. Do you know what one of (if not the) largest expenses of the federal government is? That's right, interest payments from you and me to those wealthy enough to loan their money to our government -- some $412 billion in the FY2008 budget! Federal Budget Spending and the National Debt. I'd say that's a pretty nice income for what Senator Bob Dole once described as "indoor work with no heavy lifting."
And our payments to those folks are only going to increase as our government continues its present "solution," this glide path to economic hell: getting us out of a economic mess created by credit and debt by taking on more credit and debt.
[Credit: "Don't Buy Stuff: The sure-fire way to get out of debt," NBC Saturday Night Live, Season 31, Episode 12, aired February 4, 2006, available from hulu.com.]
I don't expect anyone to agree with me. But I think Saturday Night Live had it right: "The sure-fire way to get out of debt"? "Don't buy stuff you can't afford."
__________
Related Blog Entries on Global Economy and Bailouts
Nicholas Johnson, "Don't Buy Stuff," March 6, 2009
_______________
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
Who is back? The auto companies -- GM and Chrysler.
G.M., the nation’s largest automaker, . . . is assuming it will be able to pull off a remarkable turnaround if gets the additional loans.
In its restructuring plan filed Tuesday [Feb. 17] with the Treasury Department, G.M. projects it will end 2009 with a $14 billion cash shortfall, but then improve to a $6.6 billion surplus by 2012.
That would be a swing of more than $20 billion, and whether G.M., which last earned a profit in 2004, can realistically achieve it is among the biggest questions for the Obama administration as it reviews the company’s latest loan request.
G.M. has received $13.4 billion in loans since late December . . .. Most of the new loan money that G.M. requested would be used to cover its continuing losses. The company has been losing roughly $2 billion a month since last fall.
Frankly, I see nothing that has happened during the last three months, or that GM is now proposing, that leaves GM's request for more funds as anything other than even less compelling than it was last November and December.
I don't see the business plan that explains how $30 billion more from taxpayers -- essentially $300 from every family in America -- is going to recreate the profitable and vibrant GM of old.
And I sure don't see how a proposal that includes laying off 47,000 workers and closing 14 plants can be characterized as either "a jobs program" or a part of a stimulus to our economy. ("G.M. contends that . . . losses will shrink . . . because of savings from cutting 47,000 jobs worldwide and shutting 14 plants in North America." Ibid.)
After all, GM's problem is not that there aren't enough GM cars in dealers' showrooms -- or that there could not quickly be. The problem is that those vehicles are not selling -- and that there is nothing in its proposal designed to increase sales. ("United States vehicle sales this year are at their lowest point in more than 25 years, and many industry analysts do not share G.M.’s optimism for a recovery by 2012." Id.)
Nor is this just my opinion: "in a scathing review of the restructuring plans submitted by G.M. and Chrysler, Moody’s said there was a '70 percent' probability that one or both of the companies [i.e., Chrysler as well as GM] would have to file for bankruptcy protection." Id.
Giving more taxpayer money to "the automobile industry" -- meaning GM -- primarily benefits its shareholders and handsomely paid top executives. It doesn't put money in the pockets of potential car buyers. And it essentially turns its back on the UAW members who, as a potential part of the consumer spending that is 70% of our GDP, could actually do something to boost the economy.
Insofar as those auto industry suppliers and their workers are concerned, their welfare turns on vehicle manufacture and sales -- which the GM bailout does nothing to improve. There is still an automobile market in the U.S. -- albeit substantially less (10 million vs. 13 million cars a year) than it used to be. The cars that will continue to be manufactured to satisfy that market, whether Fords or Toyotas, will continue to need parts -- all the parts for which the U.S. auto industry has a need (with or without GM). Will those suppliers take a hit? Absolutely. But it shouldn't be much greater without a GM than with it.
Here are links to eight of the blog entries from last November and December that explore some of these issues in greater depth. Almost all of them seem equally applicable today, if not more so.
__________
Nicholas Johnson, "Why America Needs a Jobs Program: Because When Your Auitomobile (Industry) is in the River It Makes More Sense to Go For the Shore Than to Continue Bailing it Out," in "Jobs, Not Unemployment, Key to Recovery," November 8, 2008
* Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source -- even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
You've probably heard it said that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. This phrase has been around since the 1970s and is a variant of the earlier observation that man needs god like a fish needs a bicycle.
