Monthly Archives: May 2012

New York, New York

My husband and I are city people, so when one of our sons moved to Manhattan, we increased the frequency of our trips to the Big Apple.

We just got home from one such trip, a long weekend in New York, and I continue to marvel at what that city has done and is doing. My son’s very spiffy apartment building is located in a neighborhood adjacent to the Hudson Yards redevelopment project–a rapidly developing part of town that prudent people avoided 15 years ago. The High Line park–a favorite walking route these days–used to be an abandoned elevated rail line. The city took an eyesore and made it into an amenity so desirable it has reportedly spurred two billion dollars of adjacent redevelopment. Despite the city’s lack of alleys, city streets and sidewalks were clean and free of garbage. Bikes were everywhere, and more are coming: the city plans to roll out the first ten thousand bicycles of a planned bike-sharing program in a couple of months. Small pocket parks are everywhere, and the ones we saw were meticulously maintained.

When I was in city hall in Indianapolis, back in the late 1970s, then-Mayor Hudnut used to say we wanted to be “a city that works.” Clearly–with all its challenges–New York is a city that works. If we are honest, it works a lot better than Indianapolis does these days.

New York’s crime rate is lower than ours. Its ability to maintain public spaces should shame us–a few years ago, the Mayor wanted to get rid of small parks that were “too hard” or “too costly” to care for, and a walk on the downtown canal is a depressing reminder that this administration doesn’t understand the importance of maintenance. The canal is one of Indianapolis’ most important amenities, and it’s being allowed to fall apart.

Public transportation? New York has buses and taxis and subways, and isn’t resting on its laurels: a new subway station is going in a couple of blocks from our son’s apartment. In Indianapolis, we can’t even manage decent bus service.

When a city is safe and well-managed and convenient, people want to visit. When it isn’t–when it is a hassle to get from one place to another, when crime rates are worrisome, when public amenities are neglected–all the SuperBowls we can host won’t make us a favorite destination.

Comments

Resolving Any Doubts……

Does anyone seriously doubt the persistence of racism in America? Or the influence of that racism on our politics?

Phyllis Schlafly–never a subtle communicator–responded to news that minority births in the US had outnumbered Caucasian ones by explaining that this is a calamity because “those people” don’t “share our values.”  

I devoutly hope they don’t share hers.

A lone statement by a woman who has long been loony-tunes, of course, wouldn’t confirm the persistence of anything. But Schlafly is hardly alone.

Just in the last week, we’ve learned about the gazillionaire from Chicago who was planning to bankroll a SuperPac ad campaign focused upon President Obama’s links to his former Pastor, the not-so-reverend Jeremiah Wright. According to information about the plan leaked to the media, the ads had a decidedly racist cast.

And we mustn’t forget the news that Arizona’s Attorney General is debating whether to place the President’s name on that state’s November ballot, since the AG “isn’t sure” Obama was born in the United States.

The question of Obama’s place of birth is another one of those dog whistles. Most of us hear “place of birth,” but the intended audience hears “doesn’t look like us.” He’s “other.” Not a “real American.”

Look–it is absolutely possible to disagree with Barack Obama on specific policy issues. It is absolutely possible to argue that he has mishandled some governmental function. But most of the crap that gets thrown at this President has absolutely nothing to do with the normal give and take of policy or political disputes. “He’s trying to change America!” “He’s a socialist!” “He’s an elitist!”–all boil down to variants of “he’s black.”

And black people, you know, “don’t share our values.”

Comments

The Persistence of Snake Oil

Morton Tavel, a well-known Indianapolis cardiologist, has previously confined his writing to medical journals and textbooks. Recently, however, he has written a very readable book intended to discomfit most of its readers. “Snake Oil is Alive and Well: the Clash Between Myths and Reality” takes on the logical fallacies and medical frauds so near and dear to the hearts of most Americans.

Full disclosure here: I would never have come across this e-book on my own; the author is my cousin. That said, I downloaded it from Amazon a few weeks ago and have now finished reading it. And my connection to the author is absolutely irrelevant to my recommendation–honestly!

For most readers, the value of the book will lie in its clear explanations, especially its exhaustive lists of medical/dietary hocus-pocus and distinction between good and bad science. Most of us have fallen for at least some of the identified quackery at one time or another.

For me, however, the central “take-away” was a meditation on the unquenchable desire of most of us humans for quick and easy solutions to our problems.

That desire is in tension with the scientific method, which is slow and painstaking and requires empirical observation and the accumulation of evidence over time before (inevitably conditional) conclusions are drawn. We want answers and we want them NOW!

If you would enjoy a brief jaunt through the history of folks who have preyed upon that all-too-human desire for instant gratification, a look at some of the con men and quacks whose nostrums are usually intended to “cure” our solvency rather than our aches and pains, this is a good read.

Be warned, though: it won’t cure what ails you.

Comments

Bipartisanship

There’s a lot of talk these days about bipartisanship and the lack thereof. One the one hand, we have cartoon characters like Richard Mourdock and peevish pundits like George Will decrying the very idea. (In a recent column, Will attacks all the bad ideas that have become law as a result of the dreaded cooperation across party lines.) On the other hand, we have well-meaning citizens and numerous other pundits despairing over the disappearance of that same co-operation.

Absent from this conversation is any recognition of the difference between goal and strategy–the difference between substance and method that determines when bipartisanship is appropriate and when it is not.

No sane person (granted, the numbers falling in that category have dwindled dangerously) promotes “compromising” with, say, genocide. But neither do sane people try to hold the country hostage by refusing to raise the debt ceiling and thereby throwing the entire globe into financial depression, in order to get their own way about something.

As with so many other aspects of our efforts to live with one another in something approximating civility, an all-or-nothing mind-set is a hindrance. The question is not: should there be bipartisanship no matter what the goal? The question is: can we work together when the common good clearly requires that we do so? Reasonable people (again, a vanishing breed) can and will disagree about what the common good requires. Bipartisanship–rightly understood–is a good-faith effort by members of both parties to determine the extent to which they agree on what the common good requires, and to come to as much agreement as possible on the methods for achieving those ends. We used to believe that getting 70% of what you want is preferable to taking your ball and bat and going home, getting none of it. (Okay, I’ve mixed my metaphors….)

There is a lot of agreement (at least rhetorically) about the nation’s problems. There is less agreement on the best way to address those problems. That’s not new. What is missing these days is a willingness to engage in the sort of give and take that gives us at least partial progress toward solving pressing issues. What’s new is the willingness of the GOP to take the country down in service of ideological purity.

Call it absence of bipartisanship, call it zealotry, call it partisanship gone wild. Whatever you call it, it bespeaks a depressing absence of the good faith and integrity citizens have a right to expect from those we entrust with the nation’s business.

Comments

Indiana’s Choice

Now that the primaries are over, and the outlines of the gubernatorial campaign are getting clearer, it is beginning to look as if Hoosiers will have a choice between a candidate with bad ideas and one with no ideas.

The Star reports that Democrat John Gregg is advocating both a tax cut for businesses and the elimination of Indiana’s gasoline tax. He proposes to make up the lost gas tax revenue by “better management.” This at a time when government is struggling to provide basic services, and when all available evidence rebuts the tired rhetoric about tax cuts generating jobs and government funding services by cutting “waste.”

Add to these positions his anti-choice and anti-gay-rights pronouncements, and apparently, Gregg has decided to campaign as the non-Pence Republican.

Meanwhile, Pence has refused to take any policy positions. In 11+ years in Congress, he never passed a bill. He’s never held an administrative position, and–to use a Republican talking point–never made a payroll. He has never disclosed the slightest interest in the complexities of public policy.  The only thing he has done is sermonize and hector. In fact, given his holier-than-thou persona, it’s odd he didn’t just go into the clergy.

Unfortunately, one of these men will win in November. Rupert Boneham, the libertarian who has thus far made more sense than either of them, is simply not viable in a state and country that doesn’t elect third-party candidates.

So our choice–as my son frequently notes– is between a competent conservative from the 1950s, and a posturing theocrat from the 1590s.

Whoopie.

Comments