Gutter: One day is all it takes

Here I thought that serious, complicated issues took a considerable amount of time to address. Turns out you can get it done in one day.

From the Post-Gazette:

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl and Pittsburgh Schools Superintendent Mark Roosevelt this morning kicked off a summit on high school dropouts, one of more than 100 nationwide sponsored by the America's Promise Alliance, a nonprofit group affiliated with retired Gen. Colin Powell.

The daylong event at the Downtown YWCA is designed to bring city school and civic leaders together to develop a plan to address the city's 35 percent dropout rate. The plan will be finalized later in the day. (emphasis added)

"Okay guys, here's the plan. Let's sit down, have some coffee and bagels, shoot the breeze about how Panera's bagels are so much better than Bruegger's but they're also twice the size and, man, those calories go right to my hips and hey, has anybody been to that Dunkin' Donuts in Squirrel Hill yet? That is so good and oh-so-bad to have a D&D right up Forbes Avenue. Gonna have to do some extra running this year. Did you see that it's certified Kosher? How about that? Can I get a chocolate frosted Kosher donut hole?

"Anyway, let's talk about this drop-out thing. Man, it's bad, isn't it? Whoa, lunch time. Who's up for Sammy's? Love that corned beef. Is that Kosher?"

- Break for lunch -

"Oh man, I shouldn't have eaten that whole sandwich. I could take a nap right now. Anybody want to run out for some Five Hour Energy Drink. That would really hit the spot."

- Break for energy drink -

"Okay guys, it's about 3:30. What does everybody think about the drop-out situation?"

"It's bad."

"Good point by you. I like that. For our plan, let's make it resolution-style and start off with some whereas statements. Number one: Whereas the drop-out situation is bad."

"Nice. Good start."

"Oh oh oh, I know what number two should be: Education is good."

"Man we're cooking now."

"Okay, number three: hmmm, I'm not really sure what else to put for our whereas statements. Let's go with two."

"I know: young people are our most valuable resource."

"That is so money. I love that shit."

"Yeah, that's good, right? I saw it on a poster outside the YMCA."

"Nice. Now then, we've got three whereas statements. Let's hit the resolution and get the hell out of here. So, let it be resolved that the city of Pittsburgh and the Pittsburgh Public School system focus renewed energy and resources on curbing this issue so that the young people of this city can have a brighter future ahead."

"Sweet. Think we should get into specifics about where the resources would come from or what exactly we plan to do to address the 35% dropout rate?"

"Are you kidding? It's quarter to five. We've been here since 9:30. I'd say this plan is finalized. Mad Mex anyone?"

End scene


Look. I'm all for addressing the drop-out rate. 35% is a ridiculously high - and embarrassing - number for the city school system. But a one-day summit? With a plan to be “finalized later in the day”?

Hey, let’s spend the next 45 minutes coming up with a plan to get out of Afghanistan. How about a two-hour sit-down to address the world’s AIDS problem? Got 15 minutes to shoot the breeze about swine flu?

Come on. What can realistically come out of this other than a photo op, a few handshakes with photogenically-disheveled drop-outs, and an empty “achievement” to brag about at a latter date? And this is happening all over the country as part of the America’s Promise Alliance, which is sponsoring “more than 100 nationwide” summits.

How about dedicating real resources to addressing the problem? A one-day summit is almost insulting to the breadth and seriousness of this problem.

Taking the drop-out problem seriously requires more than one day.

Gutter: What's the hang-up?

I’m all for personal liberty and avoiding the over-legislation of personal acts, but I think the state House probably dropped the ball a little bit this week.

From the Post-Gazette:

The House yesterday defeated a measure that would have banned drivers from using hand-held cell phones, but legislators decided to hit drivers in the wallet if they drive carelessly while using a hand-held device.

The initial legislation called for a ban on using a handheld device while driving and made it a primary offense; that is to say, you could get pulled over for using the handheld cell phone while you’re driving.

Instead, the House voted that if you get pulled over for driving carelessly, you could get an extra $50 fine if you were using a handheld cell phone at the time.

The amendment to ban the use of handheld devices was introduced by Josh Shapiro, D-Montgomery County (near Philadelphia).

Mr. Shapiro said state records show there have been nearly 7,000 accidents on Pennsylvania roads since 2002 in which the driver was using a hand-held communications device, but only 425 in which they were using a hands-free device such as Bluetooth. (P-G)

I don’t know about you, but 7,000 accidents in the last 7 years is a pretty convincing number to me. If you could cut down on 1,000 accidents per year with the threat of a $50 fine, I think it’s worth it.

Naturally, the automatic response helped defeat the measure.

But some legislators wondered why the state should focus on banning just this one distraction for drivers. Rep. Seth Grove, R-York, said that on his way to the Capitol yesterday, he saw a driver drinking coffee, smoking a cigarette and reading a newspaper. (P-G)

Yes, all of those things are distractions, just like tuning the radio is a distraction. And arguing with a passenger. And dialing up the iPod. And having sexual relations. And searching under the seat for a wayward french fry. The list goes on.

So many distractions and just not enough legislation to cover them all. But here’s the thing:

I see many, many more people driving like idiots when they’re on their phone than I see people driving carelessly due to cigarettes, coffee, and newspapers combined.

Rep. Mike Turzai, R-Bradford Woods, said failure to wear a seat belt is a secondary offense, meaning a police officer can't stop a car just because a driver isn't belted in. He said failure to wear a seat belt is more serious than talking on a cell phone, but the latter would be a primary offense, meaning an officer could stop a driver just for using a cell phone. (P-G)

The most basic tenet of personal liberty is this: do whatever you want as long as it doesn’t affect/hurt/threaten anyone else. If you don’t wear a seatbelt, you’re putting yourself at risk. If you drive like a moron because you’re using a handheld cell, then others are at risk. There’s a difference.

Five states have already banned driving while using a handheld cell, and the Oregon state House introduced similar legislation this week. Last week, Philadelphia city council voted 17-0 to ban the use of handheld devices while driving. Naturally, all of these bans have exceptions for calling 911 or reporting unsafe drivers, etc. But the trend of banning the use of handhelds while driving is growing.

Shapiro, the Pa. representative who introduced the legislation, says he’s “not giving up,” and I’d have to think that it’s only a matter of time before his law gets passed.


Addendum: I couldn’t find a way to work this in, but I just have to mention it because it’s brilliantly ridiculous and speaks to our state legislative branch.

Rep. John Maher, R-Upper St. Clair, said the bill outlawed hand-held cell phone use "while operating" a vehicle.

Mr. Shapiro insisted that "operating" meant "driving" a car. Mr. Maher said there are court cases saying that "operating" can mean just being behind the wheel of a car that is idling, but not moving forward or backward.

"Let's not criminalize innocent behaviors," Mr. Maher said. "Someone sitting in a parked car talking on their cell phone will be dragged from their vehicle by police." (P-G)

Great point there, Mr. Maher. You’re the pride of Upper St. Clair.

Not really anything else I can say about that.

Gutter: Why you wanna go and do that?

Bill Peduto has pulled out of the race for the Democratic mayoral nomination. As a result, my great plan of political action has gone down the toilet.

Let me explain:

Several years ago I thought I would make our nation’s two-party mandate work for me. So, despite my generally liberal/libertarian views (although those two don’t always overlap), I registered as a Republican. My line of thinking was that I would vote with that designation, but since my votes would usually tend toward Democrats, the voting statistics would show that a Republican had broken party lines and voted Democrat.

I then concluded that if I could convince many others to do the same thing, we could create a cause for concern within the GOP when they saw large numbers of their “supporters” cross party lines. That concern would then translate into panic and self-doubt; long term, the party would eventually unravel. I liked to think of this as tearing down the Republican party from the inside.

I was very proud of this plan, and I would boast of it to anyone who would listen.

But then Bill Peduto came into my life.

Well, not really. What happened was Luke Ravenstahl became the mayor of Pittsburgh and I began to develop an interest in city politics. Now, I’m not to be confused with the far-more advanced and well-read pundits at such luminary blogs as The Burgh Report or The People’s Republic of Pittsburgh, two of my favorite Pittsburgh-centric blogs, but through reading their work and the work of others, I came to form some opinions on the young mayor and his primary opposition in the Democratic primary, Bill Peduto.

I won’t go through what I like and dislike about each candidate because, quite frankly, it’s pretty meaningless now. But I found that I tended to prefer what I learned about Peduto over what I learned about Ravenstahl.

But as I was trying to learn me some Pittsburgh politics, I realized a crucial issue: with Pennsylvania's closed primary laws, I, as a registered Republican, wouldn’t be permitted to vote in the Democratic primary. I could vote in the general election, but by then the real decision would have already been made. The true vote for mayor is the Democratic primary, and my voice could not be heard because of my crusade against the Republican Party.

Then, as fate would have it, the state Department of Transportation showed up in a most pleasant way when they informed me that I needed to renew my driver’s license in February. The process of renewing one’s license in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania includes the opportunity to register to vote, or, if one is already registered, the opportunity to update one’s voter information.

Fortune smiled upon me, and I seized the opportunity to have a say in choosing this fair city’s next mayor. With the future of Pittsburgh as my focus, I put aside my personal mission to tear down the GOP from the inside and changed my party affiliation. I walked out of the AAA Motor Garden in East Liberty that day as a man who would be a part of the local political machine. I would be a spoke in the wheels as this great city rolls forward.

On Wednesday, March 21, 2007, the wheels fell off when Peduto announced that he was withdrawing from the race. He gave some nonsense reasons about wanting to have an issues-based race and not wanting to divide the city and that "The only way to win would be to go negative.”

Whatever.

Speculation seems to circulate around Peduto bailing because 1) he’s not a good campaigner, or 2) he didn’t raise enough money, and those two could be connected.

Whatever.

The Admiral at The People’s Republic thinks Peduto could be lining up for a run as an independent candidate in November, and there’s some discussion on that blog about whether or not he missed his chance on that one. Either way, I don’t buy it, and if that is Peduto’s plan, it seems like a poor decision: there was enough negativity about Ravenstahl that Peduto probably could have won the nomination. As an independent, he would never be able to produce the resources necessary to win the general election, nor would he have the backing of the powerful Pittsburgh Democratic Machine (which I assume exists).

All I know is that Bill Peduto has torpedoed my carefully-laid plan. I guess I could change my party affiliation back to the GOP and put the plan back in action, but it took a personal invitation from the Department of Transportation to get me to switch my party in the first place, so it seems unlikely that I will do it again.

Anyway, that’s not what it’s about. At some point, I became genuinely interested in the future of this city and I developed a genuine interest in having a say in who made the decisions that would have an impact on the future of this city. Now I feel like that opportunity has been taken away because Bill Peduto, for whatever reason, has decided not to run. As mentioned in the Post-Gazette (the article I linked in the first sentence of this post), Ravenstahl and Peduto were the only candidates who filed petitions to appear on the ballot in the Democratic primary.

So that’s it. Unless some dark horse comes along and somehow beats Ravenstahl in May, it’s done. I hope my political interest in Pittsburgh doesn't go with it.