Photo of the day: Presidents Day

Caption at the source: WASHINGTON, D.C.—John F. Kennedy visits Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960.

Did JFK tell Eisenhower "I like Ike" ....??? :)

Embarrassed Republicans Admit Confusing Reagan with Eisenhower

In time for Presidents Day is this report from America's Finest News Source:

The GOP's humiliating blunder was discovered last weekend by RNC chairman Reince Priebus, who realized his party had been extolling "completely the wrong guy" after he watched the History Channel special Eisenhower: An American Portrait.
"When I heard about Eisenhower's presidential accomplishments—holding down the national debt, keeping inflation in check, and fighting for balanced budgets—it hit me that we'd clearly gotten their names mixed up at some point," Priebus told reporters. "I couldn't believe we'd been associating terms like 'visionary,' 'principled,' and 'bold' with President Reagan. That wasn't him at all—that was Ike." ...
Following his discovery, Priebus directed RNC staffers to inform top Republicans of the error and explain that it was Eisenhower, not Reagan, who carefully managed the nation's prosperity, warned citizens of the military-industrial complex's growing influence, and led the country with a mix of firm resolve and humble compassion.

As always, of course, The Onion does a satire that is well founded on critical thinking.  It is amazing that the Onion staffers turn out such fantastic stuff without fail.

Thanking Egypt for diverting our attention away from Reagan's 100th birthday, I blogged earlier about the Reagan myths, which the Onion recaps here:

many were "horrified" to learn that the former president illegally sold weapons to Iran, declared amnesty for 2.9 million illegal immigrants, costarred in a movie with a chimpanzee, funneled aid to Islamic militants in Afghanistan, and suffered from severe mental problems.

2011 is also the 50th anniversary of Ike's farewell address when he referred to the military industrial complex.  Marking that occasion, Slate ran a great column that reminded us:

Eisenhower's fears about standing military power never outweighed his conviction that it was necessary. As Ledbetter writes, Ike was, "by any definition, a leading figure in that complex." He loved the army and devoted his life to it. Within the Republican Party, his great accomplishment was to drag the rank and file into the age of internationalism with his triumph over Robert Taft for the 1952 presidential nomination, which isolated the isolationists in the GOP.

The GOP could certainly benefit from one observation that Eisenhower apparently made (ht):

"This is what I mean by my constant insistence on 'moderation' in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid," - president Eisenhower

Yes, Ike called them "stupid" :)

From the Eisenhower Highway--in Afghanistan, that is!

True to the adage that we learn something new everyday, now I know that there is an Eisenhower Highway in Afghanistan. 

Here in the US, we are all too familiar with how Eisenhower participated in the army’s exercise to study the logistical issues in moving military vehicles and equipment from coast to coast, which was a huge factor in President Eisenhower leading the charge on building the interstate highway system that we now take for granted. 

But, I certainly had no idea that there was an Eisenhower Highway all the way in another part of the world!

The road, known as Highway One, runs in a massive arc from the capital Kabul in the eastern part of the country southwest to Kandahar, Afghanistan's second major city, and then northwest to Herat, an economic center near Afghanistan's borders with Turkmenistan and Iran.
By a strange coincidence President Dwight Eisenhower, who is remembered as the father of the U.S. interstate highway system, has a similar legacy among Afghans: The Kabul-Kandahar-Herat road has been known locally as the Eisenhower Highway because it was built with U.S. assistance in the 1950s and 60s.

Jonathan Steele's description of it is sadly poetic:

Built in the 1950s, when the United States and the Soviet Union competed peacefully for Afghan friendship, this US-funded 300-mile ribbon of tarmac was plied for two decades by lorries and garishly painted buses with no concern for security. Among the passengers were half-stoned Western hippies on the overland trail through Asia. Then came civil war and in 1979 the Soviet invasion.

As one can imagine, this highway is in a state of disrepair after years of war.

More than a quarter of the 745-mile highway is dirt and gravel. Depending on weather conditions and the mood of local bandits, the trip from one end to the other can take from 28 hours to a week.

In other words, yet another evidence that the Afghanistan of today is in a worse shape than the country that it was forty years ago. Perhaps we have invented the time machine after all--bomb a country enough, and time reverses!

One speech, different takes: Obama @ West Point

A variation of the theme that beauty is in the eye of the beholder!

First, here is James Fallows, who leads it off with "I Like Ike" and names Eisenhower as the intellectual father of Obama's address:

The more significant point, to me, is how consistent Obama's argument was with one of the statements of U.S. interest and strategy that holds up best over time: Dwight Eisenhower's extraordinary "farewell address" to the nation nearly 50 years ago.

Next up, Will Inboden at FP who says this is not the candidate Obama of 2008:

President Obama's West Point speech on Saturday provides a great example of the structural continuities in American foreign policy. As president and commander-in-chief, Obama now embraces and owns policies that he previously eschewed. For example, after running his campaign denouncing the Iraq War and doubting the surge, he is now essentially declaring Iraq a victory ("this is what success looks like: an Iraq that provides no safe-haven to terrorists; a democratic Iraq that is sovereign, stable, and self-reliant.") After spending much of his first year in office downplaying if not ignoring democracy and human rights promotion, he is now making democracy and human rights promotion one of the four pillars of his national security strategy. After previously rhetorically distancing himself from American exceptionalism, he now says that a "fundamental part of our strategy is America's support for those universal rights that formed the creed of our founding."

Let us go for a third--to Peter Beinart, who calls it a clunker:

This weekend, for the second time in six months, President Obama flew to West Point to deliver a big foreign policy speech. And for the second time in six months, he delivered a clunker.

And then Beinart adds this:

Like Truman and the elder Bush, Obama is trying to limit America’s wartime goals, to define victory down rather than either going for broke or giving up. It may be a defensible strategy, but it’s not an inspiring one. And it’s not a strategy for which the American public is prepared to lose many lives. Perhaps the president should avoid West Point graduations for a while.

I tell you, life might be easier if I didn't read such competing arguments.  Ignorance has its advantages, I suppose.  But then, this is how we make mashed potatoes :)

Gas taxes, road maintenance — debate rages on

I was reminded of Johnny Carson's quip, "I did not know that," when I read that 90 years ago, on Feb. 25, 1919, Oregon became the first state in the union to implement a tax on gasoline sold at the pump.

The tax of 1 cent per gallon was based on a simple and straightforward idea that construction and maintenance of roadways ought to be paid for by their users. Oregonians intentionally chose this, and not a general tax on the population.

What a novel idea for that time period, when automobiles were still being thought of as horseless carriages by many in this country and elsewhere! As automobile usage increased, other states and the federal government also followed up with gas taxes.

Now, when we purchase gas in Oregon, the price for every gallon at the pump includes state and federal taxes, which have gone up over the years, to keep up with inflation and the phenomenal increase in automobile and truck traffic. Local governments have the authority to charge additional taxes as well. Of course, there is a comparable tax on other types of fuel too.

That same year, in 1919, Dwight Eisenhower participated in the army's exercise to study the logistical issues in moving military vehicles and equipment from coast to coast. It was this, together with his war-time experiences in Europe, which later led Eisenhower to call for a national system of highways when he was elected to the presidency.

The two unrelated events of 1919 continue their influence on us even today, through gas taxes and a complex network of federal and state highways.

At the same time, we are also in the middle of intense public policy discussions related to gas taxes and the conditions of the roadways that seem to be rapidly deteriorating. According to the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, America's transportation infrastructure is falling apart — sometimes literally.

In its report to Congress, the commission recommended implementing a mileage-based fee system by 2020, with modest increases in federal fuel taxes in the meanwhile in order to get out of "the hole we have dug for ourselves."

Well, the forward-thinking public policy pioneers that Oregonians are, we have engaged in an interesting discussion over the last couple of years on precisely this same idea of charging road users not by the gallons of gas bought but by the miles traveled in the state. However, to a large extent, such discussions are not entirely new.

Almost 15 years ago, I was a junior participant in similar policy discussions in my earlier career as a transportation planner in Southern California. Even then, there was very little disagreement on the state of roads and bridges — this was well before the catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis in the summer of 2007, which served as a tragic reminder to those who were in denial about the state of the transport infrastructure.

Thus, after years of deliberations, I am ready for action, once we climb out of these depressed economic conditions. At least before the centennial of the gas tax?

published in the Statesman Journal, April 21, 2009

Gas tax, roads, and low-bids in contracts

While searching for the lowest and best price has its merits, consider this:

The dilemma of modern construction is summed up in an anecdote that Wernher von Braun, the scientist who developed the U.S. space program, used to tell about John Glenn, the first American to orbit the earth: “Seconds before ­lift­off, with Glenn strapped into that rocket we built for him and man’s best efforts all focused on that moment, you know what he said to himself? ‘My God! I’m sitting on a pile of low bids!’

I wish I had read the essay from where I have excerpted the quote, before I submitted the following op-ed to the Statesman Journal:

I was reminded of Johnny Carson’s quip, “I did not know that,” when I read that 90 years ago, on February 25, 1919, became the first state in the union to implement a tax on gasoline sold at the pump.

The tax of one cent per gallon was based on a simple and straightforward idea that construction and maintenance of roadways ought to be paid for by their users. Oregonians intentionally chose this, and not a general tax on the population. What a novel idea for that time period, when automobiles were still being thought of as horseless carriages by many in this country and elsewhere!

As automobile usage increased, other states and the federal government also followed up with gas taxes. Now, when we purchase gas in Oregon, the price for every gallon at the pump includes state and federal taxes, which have gone up over the years, to keep up with inflation and the phenomenal increase in automobile and truck traffic. Local governments have the authority to charge additional taxes as well. Of course, there is a comparable tax on other types of fuel too.

That same year, in 1919, Dwight Eisenhower participated in the army’s exercise to study the logistical issues in moving military vehicles and equipment from coast to coast. It was this, together with his war-time experiences in Europe, which later led Eisenhower to call for a national system of highways when he was elected to the presidency.

The two unrelated events of 1919 continue their influence on us even today, through gas taxes and a complex network of federal and state highways. At the same time, we are also in the middle of intense public policy discussions related to gas taxes, and the conditions of the roadways that seem to be rapidly deteriorating.

According to the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, America’s transportation infrastructure is falling apart—sometimes literally. In its report to Congress, the Commission recommended implementing a mileage-based fee system by 2020, with modest increases in federal fuel taxes in the meanwhile in order to get out of “the hole we have dug for ourselves.”

Well, the forward thinking public policy pioneers that Oregonians are, we have engaged in an interesting discussion over the last couple of years on precisely this same idea of charging road users not by the gallons of gas bought but by the miles travelled in the state.

However, to a large extent, such discussions are not entirely new. Almost 15 years ago, I was a junior participant in similar policy discussions in my earlier career as a transportation planner in Southern California. Even then, there was very little disagreement on the state of roads and bridges—this was well before the catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis in the summer of 2007, which served as a tragic reminder to those who were in denial about the state of the transport infrastructure.

Thus, after years of deliberations, I am ready for action, once we climb out of these depressed economic conditions. At least before the centennial of the gas tax?

Gas tax in Oregon

A few days ago, I was reminded of Johnny Carson’s quip, “I did not know that,” when I read that February 25^th was a special 90th anniversary for Oregon—in 1919, Oregon became the first state in the union to implement a tax on gasoline sold at the pump.

The tax of one cent per gallon was based on a simple and straightforward idea that those who use the roadways ought to pay for their construction and maintenance. Oregonians did not implement a general tax on the population but, instead, and correctly, directed it only at the users of the service. What a novel idea for that time period, when automobiles were still being thought of as horseless carriages by many in this country and elsewhere!

As automobile usage increased, other states and the federal government also followed up with gas taxes. And, yes, taxes have gone up, largely to keep up with inflation. Now, when we purchase gas in Oregon, the price for every gallon at the pump includes a statewide tax of 43.4 cents, and a federal tax of 18.4 cents. Local governments have the authority to charge additional taxes as well. Of course, there is a comparable tax on other types of fuel too.

It was also in 1919 that Dwight Eisenhower participated in the army’s exercise to study the logistical issues in moving military vehicles and equipment from coast to coast, along the Lincoln Highway. It was this, together with his war-time experiences in Europe, which led Eisenhower to call for a national system of highways when he was elected to the presidency.

The two unrelated events of 1919 continue their influence on us even today, through gas taxes and a complex network of federal and state highways. At the same time, we are also in the middle of intense public policy discussions related to gas taxes, and the conditions of the roadways, which seem to be regressing.

According to the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, America’s transportation infrastructure is falling apart—sometimes literally. In its report to Congress on February 26^th, the Commission noted that “over half of the miles that Americans travel on the federal-aid highway system are on roads that are in less than good condition, more than one-quarter of the nation’s bridges are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, and roughly one-quarter of the nation’s bus and rail assets are in marginal or poor condition.”

The report recommends implementing a mileage-based fee system by 2020, with modest increases in federal fuel taxes in the meanwhile in order to get out of “the hole we have dug for ourselves.”

Well, the forward thinking public policy pioneers that Oregonians are, we have engaged in an interesting discussion over the last couple of years on precisely this same idea of charging road users not by the gallons of gas bought but by the miles travelled in the state. Yet again, Oregonians are a few years ahead of the federal government. While that is being debated, our lawmakers are exploring the merits of increasing the gas tax—proposals range from an additional two cents per gallon, to as high as six cents.

However, to a large extent, such discussions are not entirely new. Almost 15 years ago, I was a junior participant in similar policy discussions in my earlier career as a transportation planner in Southern California. Even then, there was very little disagreement on the state of roads and bridges—this was years before the catastrophic bridge collapse in Minneapolis in the summer of 2007, which served as a tragic reminder to those who were in denial about the state of the transport infrastructure in the country.

The intense disagreements were related to the challenging questions of appropriate user fees, while recognizing the need for fairness and the impacts that fossil-fuel based transportation have on air quality and global warming. These are issues that have become a lot more serious over the 15 years.

Thus, after years of deliberations, I am ready for action. Perhaps there could not be a better time than the 90^th anniversaries of the first gas tax and Eisenhower’s transcontinental trip to advance this item as a part of the overall strategies related to the depressed state of the economy. We certainly do not want to wait until the 100^th anniversary of the gas tax!

Beards, bald-heads, presidents, and me

Yes, this is me. I wanted to find out how I would look without facial hair--it has been a number of years since I last did this. Not bad, eh!

One of the most admired presidents--Lincoln--had a beard. Teddy Roosevelt had a big fat mustache. But, think about this: we no more have presidents with facial hair. And, at the same time, we no longer have male presidential candidates who are bald. With female presidents, we will not have beards and baldies--well, it will be rather strange to have a bald and bearded female president. Heh heh!

The last president who had a shiny dome? "I Like Ike". Ike was also the last president to almost alays ever wear a hat while out in the public.

JFK, photographed often on beaches and on sea, eliminated hat-wearing, and also set the trend that baldies are ineligible for the Oval Office.

As Time put it, it was the simple sartorial gestures of John F. Kennedy that really shaped 20th century American style. The images are iconic now—a rolled-up sleeve, an untucked shirt, a shaggy head of hair—like something out of a J.Crew catalog or a Ralph Lauren advertisement. But in 1961, Kennedy's confident, carefree style was a radical departure from the copycat boxy gray suits and felt hats that had defined men's fashion for previous generations.
Among other things, Kennedy banished hats for men, even disposing of the top hat for his inauguration speech.

I like wearing a wide-rimmed summer hat. My favorite was a hat I had purchased when we visited the Amish countryside in Pennsylvania many years ago. I wore it a lot when we lived in the hot and dry Bakersfield. Until my daughter sat on it and crushed it one day :-(