It’s become a pattern: President Trump says something outrageous. He later grudgingly retracts his statement, or members of his administration retract it on his behalf. And then he quickly undermines the retraction.
It happened with the attacks by white supremacists in Charlottesville and with other race-baiting issues. This week alone, the pattern has been visible multiple times, on Russia and NATO.
So what explains it? What could Trump possibly be accomplishing with this blatant dissembling?
Something important and devious, actually. He is sending two different messages, each intended for a different audience.
With the initial statement, he’s talking to his primary audience. Often, that audience is his political base, and Trump is signaling that he’s with them: He, too, is a white nationalist, or at the very least he’s sympathetic to them. He believes that dark-skinned people live in miserable countries, that Mexicans are rapists, that Muslims should be banned from America and that some white supremacists are “very fine people.”
Over the past week, for whatever reason, Trump’s primary audience has seemed to be Vladimir Putin. Trump repeatedly sent messages that Putin must have liked — that NATO is a mess, that Russia didn’t interfere in the election and that the Trump administration would consider handing over an American citizen to Putin’s government for questioning.
And then, in short order, come Trump’s walkbacks. They’ve been especially lame this week. Trump claimed that he meant “wouldn’t” in Helsinki when he said “would,” and his press secretary claimed yesterday that he didn’t mean “No” when he answered a question with “No.”
But I think it’s crucial to understand the value that these walkbalks have to Trump. Almost no matter how silly they are, much of the media coverage tends to treat the walkbacks as serious. Look at many of the headlines on Tuesday. They took Trump’s Helsinki retraction at face value, even though Trump undermined it during the very same news conference at which he offered it.
The walkbacks — and the credulous repetition of them — allow Trump’s fellow Republicans to pretend that he never really meant the initial statements. Marco Rubio, Rob Portman and other congressional Republicans played along in precisely this way over the past few days. The Republicans then act as if they don’t really need to hold Trump accountable — for his betrayal of American interests, for his bizarre Putin affinity, for his racism or for any number of other issues — because Trump cleaned up his own mess.
The pattern reaches its final stage when Trump offers the final wink-wink. He again offers some kind words about white supremacists or some nasty comments about people with dark skin. Or he again suggests that maybe some random hacker was responsible for the 2016 cyberattacks.
At this point, Trump’s thinking is clear to anybody who’s honestly trying to understand it. And his fellow Republicans in Congress keep on enabling his behavior by looking the other way.
As the old saying goes: Fool me once …
Elsewhere. “The President’s job is to protect us, not to even *consider* handing any of us over to an enemy government,” Tom Nichols says on Twitter, of Putin’s request to question Michael McFaul, Barack Obama’s former ambassador to Russia, and Bill Browder, a British businessman. “If Putin can single out @mcfaul, he can single out anyone.”
Nada Bakos, who was a C.I.A. analyst under both George W. Bush and Obama, described as “unbelievable” the remarks by Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the White House press secretary, about the potential questioning. “What’s next,” she asks, “turning me over to al Qaida for questioning?”
Moscow has targeted McFaul before. Politico Magazine recently excerpted his book about his time as ambassador, in which he described how “Russian authorities conducted a ground campaign of harassment against my colleagues at the embassy, myself and, from time to time, even my family.” As he said on Twitter yesterday, “Putin has been harassing me for a long time. That he now wants to arrest me, however, takes it to a new level.”
Why is Putin doing this? Nancy LeTourneau argues in The Washington Monthly that “he’s launching the most blatant kind of bothersiderism via conspiracy theory. In other words, Mueller may have indicted people like Manafort, but we’ve got Browder and McFaul.”
But how long before they really start to take a bite out of oil demand?
Norway offers some clues, where years of generous—some would say unsustainable—incentives saw EVs and plug-in hybrid sales grow to 55% of the new car market in March. And the cumulative impact of those sales may have FINALLY translated into a drop in overall demand, with gasoline in particular seeing a 2.9% drop in sales.
Of course 2.9% is not exactly groundbreaking, but it’s important to remember that change is rarely linear. If it really is due to electric vehicles, then that figure should grow each year as adoption rates increase and older model gasoline cars retire from the fleet. And that, in turn, could lead to further drivers like gas stations closing, or lower resale value for fossil fueled vehicles.
Similar dynamics will be at play on a global scale, albeit many years behind. Now the carbon/finance geeks at Carbon Tracker have launched an interesting EV Demand Displacement Tool that allows users to explore how rates of EV adoption, mileage and efficiency gains in internal combustion engine (ICE) cars might interact to displace oil demand, and how that in turn could lead to major disruption for investors and volatility in oil pricing.
The accompanying report has several interesting findings, but the most relevant for us TreeHuggers is the fact that EV adoption alone—independent of any measures such as increased ICE efficiency, or non car-dependent development—could lead to a peak in oil demand as early as 2027. And in an aggressive adoption scenario, Carbon Tracker finds that as much as 8 million barrels of oil demand could be displaced every day by electric vehicle adoption alone by 2035. (For context, the oil price crash of 2014 was the result of a mere 2 million barrels a day imbalance between supply and demand.)
As has been noted many times before, predictions of technological development and production are more useful as ‘what ifs’, not prophecy. The oil industry—in public at least—continues to offer only conservative estimates of EV adoption.
President Trump, after being questioned by a reporter on if he believed U.S. intelligence or Vladimir Putin’s denial about meddling in the 2016 election, says he has confidence in both parties; John Roberts reports on the takeaways from the post-summit press conference.
President Trump and Vladimir Putin tackled allegations of election meddling in unprecedented terms following their one-on-one summit Monday, with Trump opening the door to an unusual offer of cooperation in the special counsel probe and the Russian president suggesting he indeed favored the billionaire businessman in 2016.
But Putin, emphatically and repeatedly, denied meddling in the U.S. election, saying there’s “no evidence.” And Trump, while saying they spent a “great deal of time” discussing the allegations, blasted the ongoing probe as a “disaster for our country.”
The two leaders spoke at a freewheeling joint press conference following a pair of meetings — one private — in Helsinki, Finland. Trump and Putin touted the summit as a “success,” vowing to improve ties on a range of issues.
“I would rather take a political risk in pursuit of peace than to risk peace in pursuit of politics,” Trump declared.
During their press conference, few topics were off limits. The session with international reporters ended with Putin being asked whether he had compromising material on Trump, which he dismissed as “nonsense.” Even that moment was overshadowed by the extensive comments on election meddling.
Trump once again asserted there was “no collusion.”
“I didn’t know the president. There was no one to collude with, and there was no collusion with the campaign,” Trump said, suggesting Democrats have used the issue as an excuse for losing. “We ran a brilliant campaign, and that’s why I’m president.”
When asked which side is responsible for damaged relations, Trump said, “I hold both countries responsible.”
The statement drew bipartisan criticism back in Washington.
“This is bizarre and flat-out wrong. The United States is not to blame,” Sen. Ben Sasse, R-Neb., said in a statement.
Former CIA director John Brennan, who frequently blasts Trump, tweeted: “Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of ‘high crimes & misdemeanors.’ It was nothing short of treasonous.”
John O. Brennan
✔@JohnBrennan
Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of “high crimes & misdemeanors.” It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin. Republican Patriots: Where are you???
The summit came just days after the Justice Department announced the indictments of a dozen Russian intelligence operatives for allegedly hacking Democratic targets in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Putin has previously told Trump that Russia did not meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He repeated those denials Monday.
And when asked whether he would extradite the 12 Russians allegedly involved, Putin instead detailed a plan, which Trump called an “incredible offer.”
Putin offered to question the 12 indicted for meddling in the election, and added that Mueller’s team of investigators could be present for questioning, if U.S. officials would “reciprocate.” He suggested this would mean Russian agents could be present for questioning U.S. officers “of interest” to them.
Meanwhile, Putin suggested he favored Trump in the election, saying, “Isn’t it natural to be sympathetic towards a person who is willing to restore the relationship with our country?” But he maintained there was no election interference.
The two leaders said they discussed a host of other issues during their meeting Monday in Helsinki, and were working toward strengthening U.S.-Russian relations — which Trump said “has never been worse than it is now” despite the push from Democrats and some Republicans back home in the U.S. to cancel the summit.
But he said the relationship has changed. Trump said he would “not make decisions on foreign policy in a futile effort to appease partisan critics, the media or Democrats who want to resist and obstruct.”
At one point, Putin handed Trump a soccer ball and said “the ball is now in your court.”
The joint press conference was held minutes after the historic summit between the two leaders Monday. The two met one-on-one for more than two hours, and later in an expanded meeting with key advisers.
Trump, as the private meeting began earlier Monday, said the two would have “a lot of good things to talk about,” from trade to missile defense to China. A host of other issues, from Russia election meddling to the annexation of Crimea to Syria, were also expected to come up.
“I think we will end up having an extraordinary relationship,” Trump said, sitting next to Putin earlier at the presidential palace in Helsinki. “Getting along with Russia is a good thing, not a bad thing.”
Putin later said he and Trump agreed to continue detailed discussions on arms control issues.
Putin said Russia and the U.S. should discuss a possible extension of the 2010 New START nuclear arms reduction treaty and the implementation of the 1987 Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty.
Trump sat down with Putin after spending the last week sparring with traditional U.S. allies—first with NATO nations over their levels of defense spending, and later with British Prime Minister Theresa May over her ‘Brexit’ strategy, though he seemed to patch things up before leaving London.
The tensions early on in his European tour created a contrast with efforts to improve ties with Moscow, leading to bipartisan concerns about the summit.
The president also claimed ahead of his summit with Putin that the Russian president would not have invaded Crimea had he been in office, calling the globally condemned annexation an “Obama disaster.”
Putin has signaled he would like Trump to soften sanctions that Washington imposed over the annexation of Crimea and support for separatists in eastern Ukraine, involvement in the Syrian civil war and allegations of Russian meddling.
Trump signed an August 2017 law imposing additional sanctions on Russia. The law bars Trump from easing many sanctions without Congress’ approval, but he can offer some relief without a nod from Congress.
Almost 700 Russian people and companies are under U.S. sanctions. Individuals face limits on their travel and freezes on at least some of their assets, while some top Russian state banks and companies, including oil and gas giants, are effectively barred from getting financing through U.S. banks and markets.
Fox News’ Judson Berger, Greg Wilson and The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Go car camping without having to relearn how to drive in reverse.
It’s summer, and people are on the road going camping. Some are pulling trailers or pop-up tent trailers, which are literally and figuratively a drag; a few have pop-up tents on their roofs; I suspect most have a car filled to the brim with stuff that they have to take out and set up; have a look at what Katherine schleps along with three kids and a husband. If you have a little car, that can be a real challenge.
That is why I am so intrigued by the Hitch Hotel; it is not a trailer, with all of the problems of learning how to back up finding a place to park, but it does go into your Class II trailer hitch. It was originally designed as a storage box for bikes, so it has solid fiberglass sides and is a lot more secure than a tent.
The magic is in the three nesting boxes that pull out on what looks like heavy duty European drawer hardware into a bed-sized box. You then drop down legs and you have your own Terran Excursion Module, looking vaguely like a LEM from the Apollo program.
Wheel-free and totally suspended off the ground, it is designed to give you a safe and streamlined place to call home wherever you are. In its closed position, the Hitch Hotel provides over 60 cubic feet of secured, suspended, watertight space for all your gear like bikes, coolers, bags, and sporting goods. In its open position, the Hitch Hotel is a patented, revolutionary sleep-space with over 135 comfortable cubic feet for 2-3 adult adventurers. No more hassles, no more sleeping on the ground. Just you, the open road, and your anywhere hotel room.
A Class 2 Hitch can support 350 pounds, and the Hitch Hotel only weighs 240, so you can fill it with gear and have more room in the car. My little Subaru Impreza or even a Mini can handle that (although I suspect that the handling will take a bit of getting used to, and goodbye backup camera and rear view mirror). You get almost all the benefits of a small trailer, like those teardrops I am so fond of, without the trailer issues. This is a real innovation.
All my camping has been by canoe or foot while backpacking, so I often look askance at people towing big trailers, thinking I could grab my backpacking stuff and car-camp out of my other car, a 1990 Miata. But I definitely see the charm of a comfortable bed in a secure box up off the ground that bears can’t easily bite through, or having to set up a tent in the driving rain. It also has such a small footprint that it would be comparatively easy to store; for people living in apartments, if your car is not too big, it could fit at the end of a condo parking spot and double as a storage locker to boot. This is definitely an idea with legs.
Forbes just estimated her total worth, conservatively, at $900 million.
Most of that wealth comes from the 20-year-old’s young cosmetics brand, Kylie Cosmetics, which Forbes (again, conservatively) valued at $800 million. Her astonishing wealth landed Jenner a place on Forbes’ 2018 list of America’s Richest Self-Made Women.
“Another year of growth will make her the youngest self-made billionaire ever, male or female,” the outlet reported, noting she’ll have edged out Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg (who became a billionaire at age 23) by two birthdays.
But Jenner’s isn’t exactly a rags-to-riches story. The youngest child in the Kardashian-Jenner crew was already starring in her family’s reality TV series and swimming in endorsement deal cash before her 18th birthday. If your zip code does, in fact, decide your destiny, Jenner’s Calabasas, California, upbringing has paved the way to a life of luxury.
It’s easy to understand why Forbes’ “self-made” distinction raised plenty of eyebrows.
“Calling Kylie Jenner self-made without acknowledging anywhere the incredible head start she had is what allows people to turn around and look at poor people and ask them why they haven’t become billionaires yet,” read one viral tweetthat’s amassed over 280,000 likes as of this writing.
The backlash was swift (and, at times, kind of funny).
Disgruntled readers even pushed Forbes to note that the publication “fully acknowledges that within the term ‘self-made’ there are many who are more self-made than others,” a spokesperson noted to CNN. A glimpse through the full list of women — on which Jenner ranked amongst the likes of Oprah Winfrey, Sheryl Sandberg, and Taylor Swift — further illustrates that point.
In peak internet form, however, then there was a backlash to the backlash.
Some argued the “self-made” distinction is fair, while others justifiably suggested the intense backlash was over-the-top and sexist.
Even Dictionary.com threw in its two cents on the matter, clarifying on Twitter that “self-made means having succeeded in life unaided.”
Intentional or not, Dictionary.com’s input further stirred the pot, with outlets like People magazine quipping, “Dictionary.com Shades Kylie Jenner After Forbes Calls Her a ‘Self-Made’ Almost Billionaire.”
As all things internet tend to do, the conversation snowballed into a sour, divisive, and oversimplified water cooler debate.
But then Roxane Gay chimed in.
And in under 280 characters, the acclaimed author gave some much needed perspective. “It is not shade to point out that Kylie Jenner isn’t self-made,” she wrote on Twitter. “She grew up in a wealthy, famous family. Her success is commendable, but it comes by virtue of her privilege.”
“Words have meanings,” she concluded. “And it behooves a dictionary to remind us of that.”
Gay’s tempered response touched on an important point.
Privilege — whether it comes down to skin color, sexual orientation, gender, ability, or money — doesn’t mean a person hasn’t worked hard or faces no hurdles, as Gay suggested in noting Jenner’s “commendable” success. But privilege does mean a person’s benefited from a system that — in some way, shape, or form — gives them a leg up.
Or, in Jenner’s case, many millions of legs up.
Jenner may be a hardworking, business-savvy entrepreneur, but she’s also benefitted from an incredible amount of privilege that’s served as the springboard to her status as an almost-billionaire. Both things can be true at once.
And acknowledging that privilege isn’t “throwing shade”or “lambasting” Jenner — it’s simply recognizing that maybe “self-made” isn’t the most accurate term to describe her wealth.
First, let’s try a little thought experiment: Whenever President Trump starts talking about NATO, imagine what Vladimir Putin would want Trump to say. Then compare it to what Trump actually says. The two are often frighteningly similar.
The pattern continued yesterday and today, with Trump disparaging NATO members on Twitter, on his way out of Washington and again when arriving at the NATO summit in Europe. Why is Trump doing this? I don’t know. But I do know the effect it’s having. Defying his own aides and senators from both parties, the president of the United States is jeopardizing the Western alliance that has done so much good over the past seven decades — and he is comforting Western Europe’s biggest modern enemy, Putin’s Russia.
More inequality? Yes, please. Federal tax policy in the 21st century has been like a tug of war. Thanks to President Trump, the rich are winning it once again.
The top-earning 1 percent of households — those earning more than $607,000 a year — will pay a combined $111 billion less this year in federal taxes than they would have if the laws had remained unchanged since 2000. That’s an enormous windfall. It’s more, in total dollars, than the tax cut received over the same period by the entire bottom 60 percent of earners, according to an analysis being published today.
Think of it this way: Income inequality has soared in recent decades, with the wealthy pulling away from everyone else and the upper-middle-class doing better than the working class or poor. Yet our federal government has responded by aggravating these trends. It has handed huge tax cuts to the small segment of Americans who need those tax cuts the least.
“Most Americans would look at that and say ‘That’s not fair, and that’s not the result that we wanted from our lawmakers,’ ” says Steve Wamhoff of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, a Washington research group that conducted the new study. Polls support his argument. The Trump tax cut still isn’t popular with voters.
For their analysis, Wamhoff and his colleague Matthew Gardner tallied all of the major federal tax cuts and tax increases since 2000. Cumulatively, the top 1 percent of earners have received 22 percent of all tax cuts during that period; the top 20 percent of earners (those earning more than $111,000) have received 65 percent of tax cuts.
Despite the depressing overall picture, I found one part of the report to be encouraging: It shows that raising taxes on the rich — to combat the extreme current level of inequality — really is possible. President Barack Obama did so in his second term, reversing most of George W. Bush’s tax cuts on the top 1 percent. But then Trump won the White House, the Republicans kept control of Congress and they went even further in cutting high-end taxes than Bush had.
Elections have consequences. And on taxes, as on so many other subjects, our two political parties have fundamentally different positions.
Entrepreneurship is one of the pillars of the American Dream. People want to be able to market their great ideas to others, but in today’s economy it can seem nearly impossible for a small business to make it. We may be in an era of box stores and online retailers, but that doesn’t mean that’s it’s impossible for small brick and mortar business owners to make it. The key to business success is successfully promoting your business, and you’d be surprised to learn that it’s actually relatively cheap to do so.
Celebrate Your Opening
There’s nothing like a big opening day event to draw out crowds and promote your business. Don’t think you have to break the bank in order to do this, a little food, music, and special opening day discounts will be all you need to bring the event to life. Finger foods like pretzels, crudités, cheese and crackers, and hot dogs are inexpensive, popular, and won’t make a mess in your new store. Promotional prize wheels can help give your event a fun carnival like atmosphere and customers will be excited to participate. Fill the wheel wedges with offers like 20% off, buy 1 get 1 free, and 10% sales prices and get customers to spin the wheel while their items are being rung up. They’ll enjoying winning the discount prize, and you’ll get your products into the hands of potential repeat customers.
Alert the Press
Write a press release about your business’ opening and send them to all your local media outlets. Newspapers, news websites, and TV stations are always looking for stories about local residents, and a business opening is almost always considered news worthy. Submitting a press release is free, simple, and a great way to promote your business.
UPDATE: a guide that is even more detailed, updated and comprehensive on how to choose a TV – 13 factors to consider according to science. It is packed with practical tips and advice and completely free. You can find it here: https://www.jenreviews.com/tv/
It should seem obvious that businesses should use various social media platforms to promote themselves, but you’d be surprised just how many people either aren’t using it or don’t know how to properly write for a social media audience. Remember two rules when it comes to social media: keep it frequent, and keep it interesting.
Be sure to get on as many different social media platforms as possible, your business should at the very least have a Facebook account, a Twitter account, and a Pinterest account. Have an employee handle all of your accounts, make sure that they make posts frequently and comment on other people’s posts too. And above all else, don’t treat any of your social media accounts like a sales page. You can talk about your products and certain promotions, but make sure you write about industry news and trends as well. If you’re a remodeling business, talk about EPA standards for green living and write tips for home remodeling projects. If you’re a mortgage lender write about the housing market and news about federal mortgage reform. As long as you write about related topics, you’ll have interested followers.
Matt Haran is a part of an elite team of writers who have contributed to hundreds of blogs and news sites. Follow him @thatdoodmatt
President Trump and Congressional Republicans aren’t giving up on their attempts to take health insurance away from millions of Americans. Here’s a quick guide to their efforts:
• A coalition of conservative groups, including the Heritage Foundation and others, recently released a new repeal plan. It’s similar to last year’s Cassidy-Graham bill. It would reverse Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion and end protections for people with pre-existing conditions.
Various Trump administration officials — including Alex Azar, the secretary of Health and Human Services — claim the bill wouldn’t hurt people with pre-existing conditions, but those claims are simply untrue. At least 20 million people would likely lose coverage if the new Republican plan becomes law, estimate Aviva Aron-Dine and Matt Broaddus of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
If Republicans keep control of Congress in this year’s midterm election, they are likely to make a new run at passing a plan along these lines next year. Every single Republican health care plan drafted so far would deprive a large number of people of insurance coverage and raise costs for many others. The main point of the plans, in fact, is to reduce federal spending on health care — largely to reduce taxes on the affluent.
Health care is very much on the ballot this year.
• In the meantime, the Trump administration continues to take steps to weaken Obamacare through executive action.
Its boldest attempt is its decision to stop defending the law against a lawsuit filed by some Republican state officials. That attempt seems unlikely to succeed in the long run, given that both conservative and liberal legal experts have criticized it, Aron-Dine told me. But if it did succeed, she added, it would be catastrophic. It would repeal much of the private-market part of the law, leaving only the Medicaid expansion fully in place.
A second sabotage attempt is less ambitious — but more certain to do at least some damage. Last month, the Trump administration announced it would expand so-called short-term insurance plans, which aren’t subject to minimum coverage requirements. Some number of (currently) healthy people will sign up for these bare-bones plans, raising costs for everyone. And, of course, if those healthy people end up getting sick, they may regret having signed on.
The administration will likely announce the details on these short-term plans in the coming weeks.
The bottom line: The recent expansion of Medicaid in Virginia was a major piece of good news on health care. Thirty-three states have now expanded Medicaid as part of Obamacare, and other states, like Nebraska and Utah, may soon follow. But all of this progress is in danger if Republicans keep control of Congress.
My dad was a cattle rancher, my mom a farmer from Iowa. They had little experience with suburbia growing up. I, however was born in OakTown. Kaiser Hospital, Grand Avenue. Thankfully, they left that environment before my lack of pigment got me more than a couple of stiff beatings. That was back when “down and out” was good. No need for the .44 going off in your ear.
Having spent most of my life thereafter in country suburban settings, where “dogs run free,” I have never been exposed to real estate developments as a remote possibility for a residence.
I am a minimalist. My lovely and attractive wife is not. So now we live in a 5 bedroom 3 bath monster of a home in a brand new subdivision. I have a 60’ x 60’ lawn in the back. Like I need this at the age of 65.
At this age, I am retired from the 9-5. I keep some rental property in California, but we have moved to Washington State to be near my wife’s aged parents, and her siblings. I still write my blogs and keep my tenants happy, but it only takes a few hours a day. There are countless things to do in this playland of lakes, farms, parks, and trees. Especially with my 4 year old Lab buddy, Lexie.
The neighborhood homeowners’ association was recently handed down to the community, from the developer. Having all this extra time, and an interest in the community, I volunteered for service on the board. It was the best decision I’ve made up here.
There is so much to learn, and we do every day. It seems as though we are reinventing the wheel, as this has to be happening in thousands of developed communities across the land. We find new resources every day, and have diverese opinions regarding exactly how far an HOA should go to “maintain order.” My philosophy is to live and let live, just as long as the lawn are trimmed and nobody trys to paint their house bright red. Others on the board are far more “by the book.” There are rather obvious special interests that some of the members are sensitive to, and others that we just ignore.
Responsibility and enforcement are key issues that we continue to struggle with. Although the Community “covenants, conditions, and restrictions” or CC&Rs, spell out some guidelines, but the board has to interpret how literally we wish to enforce them.It’s harder to be objective when its your best friend and next door neighbor who has his panel truck parked in his driveway. But, if its OK for one, then its OK for all. There are issues with which we all agree, but are just too petty to inforce. Then there are others that simply get taken out of our hands. We agreed that the kids in our development could have those movable basketball hoops. I hate them, but the kids gotta do something, right. One of the members just would not leave it alone, and kept on digging. You know what, he was right! The County has forbidden it so it is now out of our hands. Who would have known. Now we have a set of rules that has been written down all along. That would have been nice to have tucked into the “welcome to the Board” kit we never got.
It is an evolution, but one I am proud to be part of. It does remind one to keep an open mind, and an active participation. I recently found myself in a development very near my house that did not put forth the effort to maintain these standards. Let’s just say that I feel the effort we are putting towards this is well worth it.
Earthquake engineers attending a conference in Los Angeles on Thursday were encouraged to communicate more effectively with the public. Monica Almeida forThe New York Times
Good morning.
This week, as they do every four years, hundreds of earthquake experts huddled in Los Angeles in dimly lit rooms where complicated mathematical formulas representing such things as seismic energy and building strength were projected onto large screens.
To outsiders these discussions can be all but incomprehensible. And some experts who gathered at the conference here this week say that is symptomatic of a larger problem: communicating with the public.
But big questions remain: How resilient are buildings in earthquake-prone areas? Should we build stronger ones?
A number of speakers and participants at the conference urged engineers to be better at addressing the disconnect between what the public often thinks the building code protects them from — and what it actually does.
“The problem is that the public in general and building owners in particular really think that when they get a building to code they are going to get a building that is going to perform fine in an earthquake,” said Mary Comerio, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley and a proponent for stronger earthquake protections.
“The message to the public is that existing buildings are going to be damaged. That’s built into the calculations,” Professor Comerio said. “They are designed to help you get out of the building but you may not be able to go back in.”
A debate over the longstanding “life safety” philosophy of the building code — meaning that it is designed to protect your life but not much more — was central to discussions at the conference. A bill in Sacramento that could potentially strengthen the code to a “functional recovery” standard is moving through committees in the State Legislature.
But proponents of more resilient buildings and infrastructure like water, gas lines, the power grid and cellphone systems say more can be done even within the existing code.
Maryann Phipps, a structural engineer who gave the keynote address to conference participants on Thursday, urged engineers to explain to their clients that by spending an additional one or two percent a building is more likely to be usable after an earthquake.
“My takeaway is communication is important,” she said. “We need to keep it simple and clear.”