All in a Word

In another example of useless politics, we got word today that the Republicans in Congress are priming their base to interpret President Obama's anticipated call in tonight's State of the Union speech to "invest in infrastructure" as "spending as usual." Here we have a very real, objective, documented problem that has consequences for everyone in the nation whether you travel over bridges in the course of your day or if you produce or consume any goods shipped on highways that cross them. What is the response? Belittle the call to solve the problem because it is coming from a president of another party. It would be easy to characterize this as childish and silly if it weren't such a serious problem.

The taxpayers have paid to assess the quality of the infrastructure--we know how bad the roads and bridges in the nation are. We know they will not fix themselves. We know what happens when a bridge fails (as it did in Minnesota a few years ago.). We know what gaps in heavily used infrastructure means to the efficiency of our economy. What we get is word games to score political points.

Our nation needs an approach to infrastructure upgrades on a par with what we did to put a man on the moon beginning 50 years ago. We need to devise the means to correct the worst infrastructure problems in each of the 50 states in a fair and objective way. We need criteria that speaks to both national and local interests. We need to stop playing the games and begin fixing things.

To do so will result in innovation in materials, techniques and design. To do so will put people to work immediately and for a period of time that will allow the level of workforce in infrastructure building and repair to expand and contract in a way that won't disrupt the economy.

Will that take tax money? You bet, a bunch of it. We will get back a third of the salary we pay each worker in state and federal taxes. Each company of builders and material suppliers will pay taxes, too. The salaries will flow through the economy creating more jobs and more opportunity.

This should be done through creation of fixed interest 30 year infrastructure bonds. Why? First, we should be attracting some of those trillions of dollars in off shore bank accounts not being used to build anything. And because it makes sense to pay for things like highways, bridges, etc. over a long period. If a bridge lasts 50 years, what is wrong with amortizing the cost of it over 30 years of its useful life?

If the Congressional Republicans want to disparage the word "infrastructure," how about "stewardship?" That means taking care of your stuff. Just as we take care of our homes and businesses, our cars, our tools and guns, we have a responsibility to take care of our infrastructure. And, Congress? That's what we elected you to do. If you want to play word games, get a Scrabble Board.

Lunacy from a Barrel of a Gun

Today some disaffected, paranoid, deranged man shot up a "Congress at the Corner" event at a shopping mall in Tucson, Arizona. Six people died, including a child and a federal judge and a dozen people were wounded. Chief among the injuries was a Democratic Congresswoman. Right now it is not clear whether she will live, or if she does, how much of her previous life she will recover.

It is not unheard of for the mentally ill or delusional to give action to the craziness in their heads by taking a shot at public figures. Sadly, over the past twenty years or so it has become even more common for shooters to be unsatisfied with one victim and coldly take out whoever is within range.

I believe people who vandalize property do so because they are disconnected from the community somehow. They do not feel any ownership in that which they are destroying. They cannot imagine a public commons that includes them. The destruction is, instead "fun, or a payback to the community they feel no part of, I think. Sociologists may have a better handle on it than I do, but I remain convinced in the absence of a feeling of sharing and common ownership, vandalism will persist.

So, what about this young man who dispatched half a dozen humans who woke up today with no thought of dread and simply wanted to go do the public's business in an open accessible way? What little information that has trickled out about him depicts an angry person who in addition to his delusions, also felt betrayed and set upon by his government. Life and circumstances had led this guy to a truth that most of us fortunately do not share. But is this simply the vandal problem writ large?

It is in the same family, perhaps, but this guy had help getting there. First, he wasn't paying attention in school to understand how government works (and doesn't work.). Second, he ended up feeling powerless in the system of government that he lives in. Talking heads and political bloggers gave shape to his disaffection and pointed him to the source of his problems, and, what's more, pointed them out with apocalyptic hyperbole and truth shading. His political opponents were dehumanized, demonized and painted with targets. With the inability to discern matters critically, it seems he was the inevitable product of our time.

I noticed how everyone involved in the law enforcement aspect of cleaning up this mess were being cautious and mindful of the importance of the business in which they were involved. Everything said was of the barest factual nature. The horror of the times is, when something this horrific happens, we are always left waiting for the second jet to crash in the the second World Trade Center tower. We imagine there are other gunmen ready to go out in a blaze of gunfire.

Our democratic republic was a good idea and, as crazily the wheels on the system are wobbling, it still is. Somehow, though, we have to do more to make the system work better for the disaffected. Let them worry about little green men from outer space as their chief threat. Let us do the heroic work to rebuild our system of government so that the disaffected will not see it and the men and women who serve it as targets to be destroyed.

To Know Me is to Love Me

I have chosen not to be an anonymous blogger because I am willing to be held accountable for what I publish. It's OK if a reader disagrees with me or criticizes what I write. It will make me a better writer and thinker. Likewise, if I write something that is factually wrong, being corrected is what is best. It's better to be right than to prevail. Fair fight and all that.

Many bloggers and commentators choose to be anonymous in order to vent, go hyperbolic, or get their righteous snark on. You have seen their emotional contributions trying to sway, attack, defend, crush, protect or push a point of view. Without being identified with their beliefs, arguments, mindset, biases, language or wrong-headedness. It makes the marketplace of ideas a messy place indeed. It can be argued, in a few cases, that anonymity is required to protect the whistle-blower, the person in a job whose boss might punish the expression of a contrary view, etc. I can see that, but I think it is definitely an exception rather than the rule.

Stanley Fish has a thoughtful piece on this in the New York Times. It is a good departure point for a discussion about what is good and useful about the free speech elements of the internet and how it should be viewed, protected, guided, etc. I am grateful for anyone who opens a topic as mindfully as Fish does.

When I think of blogging, I wish Mark Twain were around today. Even though that was not his "real name" he became so identified with it, he was for all purposes that man. Would he have been an anonymous blogger? Would Will Rogers? Mencken? Would any of these writers been held back by putting their names next to their opinions, criticisms or arguments? Doubtful.

One of the great things about encountering people in any marketplace is knowing who they are. Knowing who someone is generates conviviality; indeed, one is more apt disagree respectfully with someone you know. I grew up in a family of debaters where we often disagreed about many things. Having good arguments and sound evidence was an entry level requirement to survive a dispute over any issue from the relative strength of comic book superheroes to what was the best dessert to who was the best president. It would be wrong to say that none of those arguments ended in physical conflict, but to this day, I love and respect the siblings who disagreed with me.

As a society--and increasingly, the world--that increasingly cherishes free speech and exchange of ideas, it seems we are better served by leaning more directly in the direction of accountability, responsibility and transparency in the conduct of public discussions. If you want me to agree with your point of view, let me know who you are.

Ends of time

I have been aware of periods in my life when opportunities to do things, or be things are passing me by. Parenthood, something I have no strong feeling about except that it be done lovingly and mindfully is all but gone from my life's horizon. Many career choices are passed now, too.

Physically, time has put limits on me, too. I don't think I will ever pursue downhill skiing and I expect I only have--maybe--ten years left to do cross country skiing. I am done with distance running but I still love climbing the mountain overlooking our valley, and hiking. Becoming a serious writer, blocked my who life by a combination of laziness and intimidation, is still out there with the same obstacles as always. I have gone past mastery of many things.

Two types of snow shovelers

There are two types of snow shovelers. The ones who get up in the morning, or go out late at night as the snow falls, or has just stopped falling, and clear their walks, edge to edge, down to concrete.
And then there is everyone else.

"Edge to edge, down to concrete" was my father's standard. More often than I care to remember on a dark snowy morning I was awakened from teen-age slumber by him to get dressed, bundled up and sent out into the Montana winter to shovel the walks in front of our house and the walks of the church, a handsome building righteously occupying a corner lot. I would have rather slept warmly.

Today, I fiercely follow my fathers snow shoveling standard. A cleared walk in winter is a commitment to participate in both neighborhood and civilization. It is a fundamental way we take care of one another. It is how we say, "I know the going is tough through all this snow and ice, but here, where I live, I want you to have a clear, dry surface to ease your way." I have many failings but uncleared walks is not one of them.

Who or What Are You?

At times, especially during the high arc of election cycles, we are prompted by others to identify ourselves--are you a Republican or a Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? Tea Party or Person-trying-to-take-away-my-government-by-trying-to-do-something-about-the-nation's-problems? It is part of the explaining the world thing--if we think we can categorize others, we can cope with them, avoid offending them, anticipate them, understand them, control them. We can use labels to diminish, simplify, judge, demonize and destroy.

In lesser ways, we do this, too. What do you do for a living? Is this your boyfriend/girlfriend,husband/wife? What church do you go to? Did you go to college? These are all ways we attempt to gather information which allows us to categorize others.

That is probably the second best way to learn about someone. Instead of "what" why don't we ask the more pertinent question: Who are you? After all, isn't that what we want to know?

I can see asking the Who rather than the What creating difficulty in our social exchanges. We are so conditioned to guard our information, color impressions, etc. in order for the answer to the What question to help us, or at least not hurt us. Giving useful, honest answers to the Who question takes some thought and some practice, but I bet it would help us get along a little bit better.

Who are you?

Person to Person

There are two kinds of persons in the United States. The first kind, the biological kind, are born, have DNA, are able to feel pain and a huge range of emotions, think, decide, believe, vote, create, procreate and die. The second kind are creations of the first kind. Not a messy procreation like birth or in a laboratory like the Frankenstein monster, but something that occurs on paper and in documents filed with government officials. The second kind of person can acquire and own stuff, can sell stuff, and can promote stuff, laws and political candidates. It can even live forever. It can act in its interest and the interest of its stockholders [sort of--as if every stockholder's interest could be known to and accounted for in the decisions which are made], and a host of other things. It cannot do the things the first kind of person does unless one of the first kind of persons acts a an agent to do them. The second kind of person is a corporation. Who, other than the U.S. Supreme Court feels these two persons are the same thing deserving the same kind of protections, duties and obligations?

I get that corporations have some useful role in our society but they are created to do something that individuals or groups cannot do. Therefore, they are different. Pretty plain to see that distinction.