Notice the relationship between the photo and the unrelated headline.   The headline topic, the general’s pointing, the president’s unease.  Perfect.

Sen. Obama may wishfully claim to be less Washingtonian-than-thou, but he’s just like every other politician, letting money trump promises when it suits him.  Ruth Marcus in the Post takes the Senator down a notch:

One-third of Obama’s cash has come in the form of contributions of $1,000 or more. Even in the age of the Internet, those don’t tend to arrive courtesy of the Check Fairy. Bundlers help.

….

What’s galling is Obama’s effort to portray himself through this entire episode as somehow different from, and purer than, the ordinary politician. Different might have been coupling the announcement with a self-imposed limit on the size of donations. Different might have been — it could still be — taking the big checks but acknowledging that, since bundlers will be bringing in even bigger hauls, disclosure should be adjusted accordingly, to reveal not only who raised $200,000 but also who brought in $500,000, who $1 million.

It’s clever spin on the Senator’s part and there will be little fallout among the general electorate since campaign finance is a distinctly Beltway insider issue.

The New York Times reports that for the first time since 1992, America’s best-selling car is in fact a car, not a truck, van, or SUV.   High fuel prices have reversed a trend toward bigger, heavier, and less fuel-efficient vehicles.

The Times also compared the costs of driving several different vehicles:

While the [Ford] F-250 costs $100,000 and a fully loaded F-150 — the better-known, smaller Ford pickup — costs about $70,000, a Ford Focus still costs less than $40,000 over five years. A Honda Civic Hybrid does, too. A Toyota Prius costs only a little more. A Subaru Outback station wagon runs $50,000 or so.

What’s interesting is not that the trucks were more expensive to drive (everyone knows that), but that the gas-powered Ford Focus costs just as much to buy and operate as a Civic Hybrid and even slightly less than a Prius.  This is due largely to the fact that the Focus is thousands of dollars cheaper than the hybrids.

Even still, there’s one quick and cheap solution that doesn’t require buying a new car:

Drive less.

Marc Fisher in the Post writes about an issue that has long interested me: why people live where they do. Different neighborhoods and jurisdiction provide different amenities that appeal to different people. Suburbs such as Montgomery and Fairfax Counties offer high-quality public schools, a feature especially appealing to middle-class families. Other neighborhoods offer proximity to bars and nightlife, a feature especially appealing to the young and single. Some jurisdictions have low crime rates, appealing to everyone, no doubt, but to different degrees. Others offer affordable housing, something becoming scarcer in DC and close-in suburbs.

Fisher concludes:

In the end, there is a bit of a city-suburb split. Many suburban residents love where they live but labor to pry open hours in which they can take advantage of what they’ve worked so hard to be near. City residents lose out on amenities such as libraries and recreation programs, and on essentials such as strong schools, but gain something some find equally precious: time.

Ask people who live and work in DC and you will find few of them complaining about spending too much time sitting in traffic.

Zimbabwe’s government jailed New York Times correspondent Barry Bearak under the charge of “committing journalism.” His lawyer, Zimbabwe’s top human rights activist, got him freed after pointing out to the court that “committing journalism” is not a crime.

Lately I’ve noticed several stickers in the Metro asking, “Did your food have a face?” The Peta web address was printed below.

The problem of such appeals is that they strike of utter moral arrogance, assuming that vegetarianism rests proudly on a moral high ground whereas omnivorism does not— no explanation provided. These appeals rarely make convincing moral arguments. They appear to assume that we all think vegetarianism is superior, but due to our laziness we don’t actively ascribe to it.

My first response to the question in the Meteo was to wonder why having a face should matter. Surely the moral rightness of consuming some type of food does not depend on whether the food had a face.

When encountering morally self-assured vegetarians, I like to ask a simple question: what is the difference between plants an animals that is significant enough to justify eating one but not the other?

I have yet to receive a satisfactory answer.

Though one could be mistaken for thinking Monumentality is a Pelosi-bashing outfit, it appears the House majority leader may have the right idea on the housing bills going through the House and Senate.

The New York Times today reports that the Senate version has been compromised by special tax handouts for house builders, airlines, and the automobile industry. Like much of the waste that passes through Congress on its way to the Treasury, lobbyists representing various interests have been able to attach riders to a housing bill whose public support and perceived urgency guarantee its own passage.

The House version lacks these provisions and it is likely Pelosi will try to kill them in the conference committee and rightly so.

The Times describes the Senate bill’s provision for home builders:

In the Senate bill, the nation’s biggest home builders, some now on the verge of bankruptcy, won a provision that would let them claim millions in tax refunds by charging their current losses against the huge profits they made three or four years ago.

Certainly house builders are hurting right now, but so are many other sectors of the economy. House builders are neither entitled nor deserving of special tax treatment: they have reaped bountiful profits the past few years by riding the real estate wave. Prudent builders would have stashed away some profits for years such as this one.

Airlines, though suffering from the high cost of fuel, are the oriental rug stores of corporate America, always claiming to be poised on the brink of bankruptcy. Congress need not intervene for an industry that needs to learn how to run itself profitably, as several carriers do. Furthermore, the solution to higher fuel prices is simple: raise fares and cut service.

The automobile industry faces several challenges. First, the high cost of fuel has driven down demand for SUVs and trucks from the Big Three, whose profitability precariously depends on gas being cheap. When prices rise, their products look less attractive to consumers. The second challenge is falling consumer demand due to decreased consumer confidence. Low confidence is compounded by the fact consumers are finding it harder to obtain credit for such expensive purchases. Additionally, the Big Three face extraordinary pension liabilities resulting from ill-considered benefits promised decades ago. Most of these problems are not new.

With such popular demand for government action in the face of declining housing prices, it is hard for Congressmen to refuse to act. Unfortunately, it’s also hard for lobbyists to refuse to act.

Due to popular demand, I’ve resurrected my long-dormant blog. Expect pithy commentary on all sorts of social and political matters with the occasional urban planning observations. Stay tuned!