Greater Greater Washington

Government


Wells' lightning-fast SUV investigation finds violations

DPW improperly purchased and leased a number of SUVs, including the ones for Council Chairman Kwame Brown, in violation of laws restricting their use, according to a preliminary report from Councilmember Tommy Wells and his staff.


Photo by Chad Horwedel on Flickr.

Wells requested information from the Department of Public Works last week. His staff must have been working late nights to analyze the data, since he already released a report (PDF) on the findings based on what DPW provided.

In 2004, when a law went into effect prohibiting SUVs or other vehicles getting less than 22 miles per gallon except for ones used in security, emergency response, or rescue, or for armored vehicles. Since then, the report shows, at least 32 vehicles were purchased or leased that violate this provision.

The report is clear when it comes to Chairman Kwame Brown's SUV:

The Chairman of the Council inappropriately requested the city provide a Lincoln Navigator SUV, and the Executive appears to have violated DC law by providing it. It is contrary to DC law to lease or purchase a sport utility vehicle (SUV) or a vehicle that achieves less than 22 miles per gallon (MPG), and the requested vehicle does not meet any of the statutory exceptions.

While it was inappropriate to request this type of vehicle, the Chairman of the Council is permitted under DC Code §50-204(a) to have an official vehicle to travel between his residence and workplace, and for use in the course of his daily work.

The law also prohibits DC workers from chauffering others around, except for the Mayor. However, the report says officials may have been routinely violating this provision, including in past administrations.

Also, DPW does not have a centralized list of vehicles and to whom each is assigned. A DC Auditor report from April 2010 recommended DPW create a "comprehensive fleet management program" to track this, but that has not yet happened.

Most Councilmembers were silent at first when revelations about these SUVs first broke. Many feared that they would put comity over accountability in this case. Wells, for his part, has moved extremely quickly to get the facts out and stand up clearly to root out this problem throughout the government.

David Alpert is the Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Greater Greater Washington and Greater Greater Education. He worked as a Product Manager for Google for six years and has lived in the Boston, San Francisco, and New York metro areas in addition to Washington, DC. He loves the area which is, in many ways, greater than those others, and wants to see it become even greater. 

Comments

Add a comment »

Slightly off topic, but there is no such thing as "22 MPG".

We have two ratings: one for CAFE purposes, one for EPA purposes which is put on the window of a new car.

The EPA one, of course, has highway and city mileage. There is a formula to combine them, but it is that -- a formula.

DC driving is far more "city" oriented. I speak as someone who gets 15MPG in their old car in DC.

Other than a smartcar, or nissan versa, you'd be hard to top that. Maybe 22-23 is something like a Honda Fit or Mini Cooper.

Are there abuses here? yes, probably. Is the law really drawn up in the best way -- probably not either.

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 10:49 am • linkreport

Brav-O Tommy Wells! Someone in our city cares about laws, rules and money.

by Glenn on Feb 28, 2011 10:50 am • linkreport

I'm confused by the first comment that there "is no such thing" as 22 MPG, which is followed several lines later by the statement that included mention of "15 MPG."

by Michael on Feb 28, 2011 10:58 am • linkreport

@ charlie: Other than a smartcar, or nissan versa, you'd be hard to top that. Maybe 22-23 is something like a Honda Fit or Mini Cooper.

BS. I get 34 mpg on my 10 year old Civic, except when I am totally stuck in a traffic jam. On highways it gets up to 36, and when I have real bad traffic in a city, it goes down to 30. Only times I've got under 30 is when I had stand stills that lasted for a while.

BTW: Nice coming in for the Council Chairman. He should go.

I wonder if the other criminal in the council has made any statements yet...

by Jasper on Feb 28, 2011 11:05 am • linkreport

@charlie

That's totally bogus, there are tons of cars that get better than 22mpg city driving.

You could actually look at the EPA's numbers: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/download.shtml

The 2011 version of the Ford Escape (NOT the hybrid) gets 23MPG city. 23MPG is nothing, and the idea that you have to get an econobox to meet that is ridiculous and outdated.

I went through those numbers and took out crazy cars and the duplicates of any model (hybrid version, 2wd vs 4wd, etc.) and there are no fewer than 80 cars/trucks/suvs that meet this standard. That is not restrictive.

by MLD on Feb 28, 2011 11:09 am • linkreport

@ MLD; the point is the EPA ratings themselves are a bit weak.

My car gets 25MPG city EPA; in reality I get about 15 driving around DC.

The point I'm making isn't about the car availability, but whether the measure in the law "22 MPG" is a good one. Like all measurements, it is imperfect. Is it good enough, though?

Any hybrid will do very well, and I worry they might be the only solution to city mileage. Short drives, not enough warm up, and stop and go are killers. Not to mention idling...which is also illegal in the District.

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 11:15 am • linkreport

Right, it's a bit disingenuous to say there are several ways of computing MPG, therefore it's meaningless. By any measure or definition, these vehicles fail to meet the legal standard.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 11:17 am • linkreport

Good to see the Councilmember has time to look into saving the District maybe $50,000 total ... Given the enormity of the budget deficit. That $50,000 will go a long ways in bringing about solvancy.

;)

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 11:18 am • linkreport

One other thing: I'm proud to have Wells as my Councilmember. If the rest of y'all would get your act together, we'd be a world-class city in no time.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 11:20 am • linkreport

And talk about rediculous requirements. Maybe we should legislate city employees not being able to board a half full Metro train given the inefficiencies and enourmous costs involved in opperating at that insufficient level of capacity.

But that's what happens when you have small thinkers. It's easier to address these small matters that really mean nothing in the overall scheme, than to address the hard stuff. And it make better press ...

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 11:21 am • linkreport

But it's so hard to be stylin' in a Ford Escort.

by ksu499 on Feb 28, 2011 11:22 am • linkreport

The law may lack some clarity, but there's no way that what Kwame Brown ordered was something other than a "sport utility vehicle" or got more than "22 mpg". We can have the lawyerly arguments when he gets some mid-sized cross-over vehicle that gets 26 hwy/20 city.

by ah on Feb 28, 2011 11:22 am • linkreport

@Lance,

Good point. We'd be much better served with endless investigations into how Gabe Klein hid hundreds of millions of dollars in off-shore accounts, why the streetcars aren't ADA compliant, and how their wires will blot out the sun.

:P

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 11:27 am • linkreport

@ksu499 (and others):

Why can't Kwame style in whatever car he purchases with his own money? Jim Graham looks sweet in his Beetle cabriolet that wasn't bought with city dollars.

Why is a car even thought to be part of the salary of a councilmember? I can vaguely understand it for the mayor, but for everyone?

by ah on Feb 28, 2011 11:27 am • linkreport

@charlie

You're just moving the goalposts and then saying that there's no way to meet the standard.

As oboe said, by any measure or definition of fuel economy, these vehicles don't meet the standards at all. Hell, they don't even reach 20MPG highway.

By what measure would you have them decide what cars meet "22MPG city" other than what the EPA says the mileage is? That's clearly the metric they're going for; after all, who else is an official source of this metric?

You have no argument. First you say that EPA's MPG measure isn't the "real" one and then you say that 22 "real" MPG is too restrictive.

Well the law solves your problem, since it actually uses a metric (which you don't), and then that metric produces 80 vehicles that the DC gov't could lease or buy (not restrictive).

by MLD on Feb 28, 2011 11:31 am • linkreport

@MLD; lose you Oscar pool last night? Picking a fight.

The law says "22MPG" and doesn't explain it any further. You can ASSUME it means the EPA combined cycle, which takes a mix of city and highway mileage (40/60) and kicks out a number. That is what was done, for instance, with cash for clunkers.

My point is for city, or DC driving, that number is artificial. Driving here isn't the 40/60 mix; more like 90/10. And even the EPA city mileage doesn't reflect actual conditions.

So, is the law a bad idea, or just needs to be more carefully drafted? On that, I don't really know.

(and yes, this is side point. I've been doing some work on getting a better city mileage marker put out there, and it strikes me how often people assume the EPA numbers mean something when in reality, they don't)

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 11:37 am • linkreport

@jasper; then your driving may resemble the EPA model more. And your 10 year old civic is probably a bit lighter than a new one....

And again, I'm talking about true city milage; stop and go red lights every block, traffic jams, etc.

My car gets an EPA 30 MPG on the highway, I usually can get about 34 with a light foot.

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 11:40 am • linkreport

@charlie:

Link to the text of the law please. I certainly haven't seen it. Have you?

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 11:42 am • linkreport

Ah, here we go:

"Except for security, emergency, rescue or armored vehicles, all passenger automobiles ... purchased or leased by the District government shall have an Environmental Protection Agency estimated miles per gallon average of not less than 22 miles per gallon, and shall not be a sports utility vehicle."

http://www.washingtoncitypaper.com/blogs/looselips/2011/02/25/city-law-dont-buy-or-lease-suvs/

I don't think that could possibly be any clearer.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 11:45 am • linkreport

As a random data point, my car gets somewhat-decent mileage on the highway (26mpg), and godawful mileage (15-16mpg) in the city.

Granted, I mostly use my car for long trips out of town, so this isn't hugely concerning. If I drove through the city every day, I'd be looking for a new car.

by andrew on Feb 28, 2011 11:46 am • linkreport

@Oboe; two other points.

1. The law was passed in 2002. EPA redefined the mileage guidelines in 2008, which resulted in major changes. For instance, they started using AC. I can't say for certain what that would do a large SUV -- I suspect the post 2008 rules would be harsher. So a SUV that passed in 2003 might not pass today.

2. The law, again, doesn't say the magic words --- combined EPA MPG.

3. For those of you interested:

How Are the Label Estimates Calculated?

Fuel economy estimates are calculated from the emissions generated during the tests using a carbon balance equation. We know how much carbon is in the fuel, so by precisely measuring the carbon compounds expelled in the exhaust we can calculate the fuel economy.

After the vehicles have been tested, the results are adjusted downward to account for conditions that occur on the road that can affect fuel economy which don't occur during laboratory testing, such as cold temperature, aggressive driving, excessive use of power-hungry accessories, among others. The city is adjusted downward by 10 percent, and the highway by 22 percent.
The equation for calculating the city or highway average fuel economy, given in miles per gallon (mpg), is:

FEave = (total sales / [(sales1/FE1)+ (sales2/FE2) + ...+ (salesn/FEn)]

The calculation for combined fuel economy weights the city at 55 percent and the highway at 45 percent using the following equation:

FEcomb = 1 / (( .55 / city FE) + (.45 / hwy FE))

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 11:52 am • linkreport

@Oboe 'Good point. We'd be much better served with endless investigations into how Gabe Klein hid hundreds of millions of dollars in off-shore accounts, why the streetcars aren't ADA compliant, and how their wires will blot out the sun.

I didn't know about the off shore accounts ...

:P

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 11:52 am • linkreport

Incidentally, I think back in 1980 the EPA still only published one EPA number. (I.e., it might have been before they went to 'Highway' and 'City').

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 11:55 am • linkreport

Never mind ... I thought I'd read the law was passed in 1980 ... Now I'm seeing 2002

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 11:59 am • linkreport

@ah 'Why is a car even thought to be part of the salary of a councilmember? I can vaguely understand it for the mayor, but for everyone?

That's the best comment on here thus far. While everyone is busy trying to figure out how to micromanage others, you point out the obvious. Why does a car need to be a perk for the council chair? It's not like they have a 'head of state' position like the mayor.

by Lance on Feb 28, 2011 12:04 pm • linkreport

Here, here on some investigations and accountability.

by Gavin on Feb 28, 2011 12:06 pm • linkreport

I think that's actually why there's a fair amount of scorn for the luxury SUVs. Obviously a generic car shouldn't be a perk of being a councilmember. But if council members were allowed the use of those generic white econoboxes that the parking enforcement officers use, they'd be driving their own damned vehicles. The whole point of the perk is that it's access to these ridiculous "luxury" vehicles. They're the automotive equivalent of a jewel-encrusted pair of solid gold pants.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 12:14 pm • linkreport

[SUV's a]re the automotive equivalent of a jewel-encrusted pair of solid gold pants.

With apologies to @HogWash...

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 12:17 pm • linkreport

@ oboe; well, actually the bit about DC employee being used as drivers is also a big (although ignored) part of the story.

Was it carter's secretary of energy who had a drive a little econobox around?

The real abuse of SUVs is on the federal side, not in DC.

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 12:29 pm • linkreport

We now understand that since now under three different mayors and three different council chairs, the city has been illegally purchasing SUV's that don't meet the letter of the law. Does anyone find that even after Fenty was reprimanded for allowing his friend to drive his city-owned SUV, that no one bothered to check whether he (or anyone else for that matter) was legally allowed to have it in the first place?

Now even though I'm not a fan of smaller SUV's (think they're for women), has anyone ever seen a gov't official travel in one of these? Also, does the law refer to city or highway miles?

Whatever the case, there aren't many american-made small SUV's that met the requirement. The Chevy traverse is "maybe" one of the better ones but even it may get less than 22mpg.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 12:31 pm • linkreport

lol@Oboe, yeah ok, if this is now your argument.

So is this safe to assume that you (and tina) would've had less a problem if the same navigator was purchased as the base model (w/o the bells and whistles)? Point here is that there are "luxury packages/options" that all vehicles have. But, a base model Navi is still a Navi.

Based on last week's commentary, it seemed that you had a particular dislike for the type/size of vehicle itself...not the "extra" things that make it luxury. But I could be wrong.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 12:38 pm • linkreport

Now even though I'm not a fan of smaller SUV's (think they're for women), has anyone ever seen a gov't official travel in one of these? Also, does the law refer to city or highway miles?

http://lincoln.com claims a City/Hwy EPA MPG of 15/20. So it's baloney whichever way you slice it. Very manly though.

The only thing more manly than driving a fully-loaded Navigator with a black interior (not gray!) would be to light a few 50 gallon oil drums on fire, put 'em on a flat-bed trailer, and tow them around town.

Imagine how cowed outsiders would be at the magnificence of our elected officials! Let's put big brocaded hats on them, and fashion them with epaulets. They'd be feared as human Gods!

Sometimes it's a bit depressing to see how far we've come since the days of the pharaohs.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 12:45 pm • linkreport

While the conversations about MPG are interesting (which I mean legitimately, not in a sarcastic way), they seem to have no bearing. The law specifically prohibits any SUV, regardless of how efficient its mileage may be.

by AR on Feb 28, 2011 12:50 pm • linkreport

Based on last week's commentary, it seemed that you had a particular dislike for the type/size of vehicle itself...not the "extra" things that make it luxury. But I could be wrong.

Ok, just to introduce a bit of reality here: these Navigators we're talking about cost the city $2000 per month. The most "low-frills" Navigator you can buy costs $56,000. And get's 20 mpg in optimal conditions. So, yes, I would argue that *is* a luxury--even without installing a wet bar, or 7.1 Dolby mobile entertainment system.

If you disagree with that, I'm not sure what can be done to help you.

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 12:53 pm • linkreport

@Oboe, er, hunh? I'm not sure what the last post was about.

I asked whether anyone has ever seen a gov't official drive around in a mid-sized SUV. I think the answer is mostly no.

I also whether the law referred to city or hwy miles and your response is that my question is baloney? Really? And here I was thinking that was a relevant question.

So we won't repeat last week's menu of mischaracterizations, I'll start with yours. Did I actually say that fully loaded SUV's w/black interiors are manly or was that your incorrect paraphrase? I said that I believe smaller SUV's are less manly (I'll give you that). That is not the same as saying fully loaded SUV's w/black interiors w/poor gas mileage is manly. Again, your incorrect paraphrase.

Dude, you don't have to continue your attempt at putting words in my mouth. As you can tell from past commentary, I don't have a problem clarifying my positions when I am asked.

Epaulets and pharoahs? Again, hunh?

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 1:05 pm • linkreport

@Oboe, Ok, just to introduce a bit of reality here: these Navigators we're talking about cost the city $2000 per month. The most "low-frills" Navigator you can buy costs $56,000. And get's 20 mpg in optimal conditions. So, yes, I would argue that *is* a luxury--even without installing a wet bar, or 7.1 Dolby mobile entertainment system.

If you disagree with that, I'm not sure what can be done to help you.

Wowsers! So because I don't think a 56k truck is a "luxury" item, then I somehow need help beyond what this commentary can provide?

There's that self-righteous thing again. Where a difference of opinion turns into an indictment.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 1:11 pm • linkreport

@HogWash:

I also whether the law referred to city or hwy miles and your response is that my question is baloney? Really? And here I was thinking that was a relevant question.

My point was (and I didn't mean to be rude, just a bad pun on "slice") was that when the law says "must get better than 22 mpg", then how is it relevant whether that's highway or city when *both* highway and city mileage are worse than 22mpg?

Did I actually say that fully loaded SUV's w/black interiors are manly or was that your incorrect paraphrase? I said that I believe smaller SUV's are less manly (I'll give you that). That is not the same as saying fully loaded SUV's w/black interiors w/poor gas mileage is manly.

Got it. Small SUVs, less manly. Huge SUVs, not *more* manly exactly, but...what's the word we're looking for? Hermaphrodite?

I'm not sure why exactly are we so concerned with our public officials not be seen as 'womanly', but so long as this *is* a legitimate concern, wouldn't the most effective course of action be to put them in massive SUVs, and dress them up like Idi Amin?

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 1:17 pm • linkreport

@ MLD I downloaded the same list, removed dupes, < 22 mpg and foreign makes, and wound up with 18 possibles. And several of those are SUVs. There really aren't a ton of American cars that get > 22 mpg city.

by jcm on Feb 28, 2011 1:22 pm • linkreport

lol@Ok, had to lol@ your last sentence.

Here's some clarity.

I asked the question about the mileage because I didn't know of any full-sized (or small for that matter) american models that meet the standard set by this law. I was not asking the question to again push the Navi as a reasonable alternative. I assume this is why you continue to disregard my question about the mileage. I wasn't referring to it. But, I've driven them countless times so I know that it and others like it hardly come close.

I retract my original. I think smaller SUV's are for women and bigger SUV's are for men. That's as cut/dry a statement I can make on that. My only exception is the Porsche Cayenne.

I don't believe anyone is making a vehicle's "gender group" as a topic of concern. In fact, it doesn't even make the list of concerns. I stated my position on that simply as a matter of conversation. You don't have to take that, run w/it and conclude that this is a topic of interest for anyone other than me.

@AR, While the conversations about MPG are interesting (which I mean legitimately, not in a sarcastic way), they seem to have no bearing. The law specifically prohibits any SUV, regardless of how efficient its mileage may be.

No, the law does not specifically say that.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 1:42 pm • linkreport

@ Hogwash Yes, the law does say that.

§ 50-203. EPA Miles Per Gallon requirement; restrictions on use of sport utility vehicles

(a) Except for security, emergency, rescue, or armored vehicles, all passenger automobiles, as defined in the Automobile Fuel Efficiency Act of 1980, approved October 10, 1980 (94 Stat. 1824; 15 U.S.C. 2001(2) ), purchased or leased by the District government shall have an Environmental Protection Agency estimated miles per gallon average of not less than 22 miles per gallon, and shall not be a sports utility vehicle.

(b) The District of Columbia government shall not purchase sport utility vehicles for government use; provided that this section shall not apply to security, emergency rescue, snow removal or armored vehicles.

by jcm on Feb 28, 2011 1:45 pm • linkreport

@jcm Thanks for beating me with the quote. :)

by AR on Feb 28, 2011 2:26 pm • linkreport

An act passed in 1980 specifically mentioning the term 'sport utility vehicles' when that term appeared IIRC in the 1990s?

by Douglas Willinger on Feb 28, 2011 2:35 pm • linkreport

@Douglas Willinger:
The Act has been amended.

by Matt Johnson on Feb 28, 2011 2:36 pm • linkreport

@Matt Johnson; actually DW has a point.

construction. First part bans passenger vehicles under 22 MPG and SUVs.

second part is an exception to allow SUVs for certain use.

Nothing about MPG for SUVs.

Very badly written and too broad.

by charlie on Feb 28, 2011 2:48 pm • linkreport

The development of this thread is an excellent example of how we tend to loose ourselves in detail, while completely forgetting about the bigger point: One of DC's new City Council Chair's first actions was to waste money and broke the law. Whether it was out of ignorance, or despite his knowledge makes little difference - normal citizens don't get off a parking ticket when parking signs are confusing.

by Jasper on Feb 28, 2011 2:53 pm • linkreport

@charlie:

You'll have to elaborate on this one. What I read says:

a) All passenger vehicles purchased or leased by DC gov't must average at least 22 miles per gallon. And shall not be an SUV.

b) Really, we're serious about the SUV thing.

Not sure exactly how that's "badly written" or "too broad". Perhaps a sub-section "c)" saying "Please re-read 'b'."?

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 3:00 pm • linkreport

@JCM, Hey thanks. To clarify,

AR posited that the law specifically bans the purchase of SUV's. I responded that it does not because, according to your post, it doesn't. It grants an exception for security, emergency, rescue etc.

Maybe what AR meant to say is that "the city prohibits the purchase of any SUV, regardless of its efficiency, unless the vehicle is being used for security, emergency, rescue etc."

Isn't that a more thorough reading of the law. I mention this because many people have pointed to the fact that the law is on the books specifically banning SUV's. What they fail to mention are the exceptions.

Consistent with the theme of intelligent discourse that GGW always provides, i believe it's better to make sure that the right information is being put out there - not just the information that best suits our respective positions.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 3:02 pm • linkreport

@HogWash,

Now, just to close the circle: is Kwame Brown primarily engaged in providing security, fire & rescue operations, or plowing the city's snow clogged roads?

by oboe on Feb 28, 2011 3:07 pm • linkreport

@Oboe, Now, just to close the circle: is Kwame Brown primarily engaged in providing security, fire & rescue operations, or plowing the city's snow clogged roads?

No, the council chair is not. Not sure I understand the relevance of you asking me that at this point.

by HogWash on Feb 28, 2011 3:43 pm • linkreport

@David Alpert
I'm not sure that photo is of the actual SUV in question, but what someone grabbed off the internet to illustrate the story with.

In the future, I would rather see a stock image pulled from ford/lincoln.com

by shy on Feb 28, 2011 3:45 pm • linkreport

That's how our photos usually work. We find free photos that generally illustrate the topic. We don't have the resources to have staff photographers go around to find a photo of the particular crash or particular vehicle or particular meeting being discussed.

by David Alpert on Feb 28, 2011 3:47 pm • linkreport

@HogWash

You are correct that I left out the exceptions. It wasn't out of a desire to misrepresent, though, just that the information wasn't relevant. The case in question isn't referring to security, emergency rescue, snow removal or armored vehicles.

Of course, if the vehicle is used for those purposes, then the MPG stipulations are irrelevant, since the law specifically only applies to passenger vehicles that don't meet those criteria.

by AR on Feb 28, 2011 4:10 pm • linkreport

Fact: If you think driving a large SUV makes you a man, you are in fact not a man.

Men, particularly great men, don't measure their worth via depreciating assets. Real men and women are doers, thinkers, builders.

by Patrick Thornton on Feb 28, 2011 7:41 pm • linkreport

Er, Patrick, according to every science I've encountered, what makes a man is gender and the meeting the legal age requirement.

Whether you like big cars, small cars, no cars, bikes, roller blades, unicycles etc. none of those determine gender or age.

Anatomy/science determines manhood, not our respective opinions. There is no distinction between a real man and a fake man, unless the latter is impersonating the former.

The "real man" phrase is just something we like to say. That's all.

by HogWash on Mar 1, 2011 9:41 am • linkreport

I understand that Marion Barry has demanded a Hummer.....

by Bob on Mar 1, 2011 11:31 am • linkreport

@Hogwash according to every science I've encountered, what makes a man is gender and the meeting the legal age requirement.

...but you weren't really referring to this definition of "man; adult human male" when writing that the big SUVs are "more manly" than smaller SUVs. What you're positing, that an external object completely irrelevant to ones' biological gender "is more manly" is instead a social construct of what you think enhances ones' manhood or manliness strictly from a social standpoint, not a biological one.

by an observer on Mar 1, 2011 2:29 pm • linkreport

@Observer, thanks for your comment, although it's a bit irrelevant considering what I was responding to.

What I posited is that there is no such thing as a "real" man vs. a "fake" man. That actually is a matter of science/law.

You're correct, I wasn't really referring to the above referenced definition of "man/adult human male." That's why I didn't add the thought in response to Patrick's post. I discussed them separately because I felt as if it were appropriate.

My responses y'day and my response specifically to Patrick's post today. Two different things.

by HogWash on Mar 1, 2011 3:16 pm • linkreport

@HogWash: "I think smaller SUV's are for women and bigger SUV's are for men. That's as cut/dry a statement I can make on that."

Why?

by dcd on Mar 1, 2011 4:58 pm • linkreport

Add a Comment

Name: (will be displayed on the comments page)

Email: (must be your real address, but will be kept private)

URL: (optional, will be displayed)

Your comment:

By submitting a comment, you agree to abide by our comment policy.
Notify me of followup comments via email. (You can also subscribe without commenting.)
Save my name and email address on this computer so I don't have to enter it next time, and so I don't have to answer the anti-spam map challenge question in the future.

or

Support Us