Liebermania Run Amok

Desperation in politics engenders some pretty wild stuff.

Today Joe Lieberman, in a last-ditch effort to save his political arse, accused Ned Lamont's campaign of attacking his Web site Joe2006.com. Down in the polls, despite massive help from Bill Clinton and others, the campaign pulled out this desperate PR stunt to "campaign" as the victim on election day. As polls close, it's becoming fun to wonder what the Democratic Party would look like without Joe.

But first, let's consider this: who is Ned Lamont?

Races featuring incumbants are usually cast as referenda on the office-holder. But this primary campaign has been more about Lieberman's friends--namely how he can be so bipartisan that he might as well skip being a Democrat. Most of the talk is centered on Lieberman's unwavering support of the Iraq War and his willingness to give Bush the tools to wage it endlessly. Nobody is actually talking about Ned Lamont. Even the New York Times OpEd piece endorsing Lamont dedicated 11 of 12 paragraphs to Lieberman and why he's no longer right for the job. Apparently the only thing Lamont has done is allegedly hack a Web site--is this the future of the party?

So let's say Lieberman does lose (rather than say "Lamont wins"). Does this mean that pro-war Democratic candidates will have a tougher road ahead? Will voters be able to make real distinctions between pro-war Dems like Hillary Clinton (NY) and Maria Cantwell (WA), and their Republican counterparts? Has it really taking this long after the Kerry campaign to realize that you can't have be a Dem and have it both ways--pro-war and anti-this-war? Pro-ousting Saddam but anti-drawn-out-campaign? Pro-war and anti-instability? Pro-war and pro-peace? This is Liebermania run-amok.

We must take this one step at a time. We won't know what this primary election means for Dems in November until results from CT are released tonight. And there's no need to speculate about 2008 until we see what really happens in November.

But, for the first time in a long time, an established, powerful lawmaker is about to get the hook for his political views--and not for any scandal. I think that's a strong step in the right direction for figuring out what the Democratic Party should represent.

Good luck Ned!

Uphill Battles

Now for painful training, here's a site for cyclists who love to climb in their everyday rides--BicycleClimbs.com. Log in, pick your region, and check off which climbs you've done and how many more are left to do. After I checked all the hills I've climbed on the list, I still see 75 or so that I'll need to hit. Sheesh!

The Seattle region looks a little heavy on East Side hills--hasn't anybody climbed NE 65th St. from the Burke Gilman into Wedgwood?

Why Cycling Hurts the Environment?

Here's a kicker--bicycling and bike commuting hurts the environment.

So says UPenn scholar Karl Ulrich in an article published last week. Ulrich argues that while most environmentalists believe that any self-propelled transportation option is better than using fuel-burning, toxin-emitting cars and trucks, there's actually a hidden costs. If more people bike to work, they'll be in better physical shape, live longer, and ultimately consume more energy over the course of their lives than if they stayed sedentary, stuck to driving, and died early.

If that's the case, all environmentalists should start smoking immediately!

Ulrich's essay states that using a bicycle for limited trips to replace single-occupancy car outings can be helpful to the environment overall. Commuting, however, causes otherwise sedentary people to be active, burning up the energy that they store inside their bodies, and requiring more food and energy intake (with the associated food production costs) to maintain a healthy, active lifestyle. With all those healthy bike commuters living longer, and consumming more in their later years, think of the costs!

Of course, I don't buy it. Think about all the energy and cost that is required just to burn fossil fuels, let alone fund the medical care for illnesses related to obesity and sedentary lifestyles.

Now if only we could get cyclists on the roads and in the gym to harness all that energy that they produce and sell it back to the power grid...