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.
Tuesday, January 25, 2011
Saturday, January 8, 2011
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)