Tag: ideal

Categories
culture

Big Cities

Large cities (I mean those with populations exceeding half a million people) seem to be ideal from a commercial and industrial perspective with a large number of people in one area to supply a workforce and a large body of consumers. With the exception of businesses that require open space (ranching/farming for example) large cities would seem to be equal or superior to any other population arrangement.

When it comes to the question of what is best for individuals though, I don’t think that such close proximity to so many other people is desirable for some people (certainly not for me). I believe that there are great advantages such as access to cultural and entertainment options that are more available in large cities than they are in other settings but I can’t see those outweighing the noise and crowding of the city to make living there preferable to living close enough to access the amenities.

I admit to a lack of experience with large cities. I have visited Chicago, Orlando, Baltimore, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Denver, and Albuquerque (and Phoenix, but that was long enough ago that I don’t think it would have counted), but the largest city I have lived in is St. Louis which is not quite that large. Does anyone see any advantages or disadvantages of living in large cities that I may have missed?

Categories
culture life

What’s Your Ideal?

I have been thinking a lot about my ideal living situation. It’s really something I have been exploring for years. My thinking is not confined to my own ideal, I also think about what is ideal for people generally (a pretty gray area) and about why situations that are not ideal for me are ideal for other people (which is total guesswork without some outside input).

I am considering factors such as the size of city to live in ranging from millions to tens, the proximity to amenities and services, which amenities or services are most important, the distance between houses, the culture of the neighbors (assuming you’re in a place large enough to have neighbors), the size of the house, and the size of the property.

For myself, I prefer a small community where people know each other and are tightly knit but not close-minded. The house does not need to be very large, but it must be configured in a way that is conducive to the family life that we are trying to create (it would take a whole series of posts to describe the family life we are trying to achieve). I could live on as little as a quarter acre in the right circumstances, but would be able to tolerate much more various conditions around me if I had at least 2 acres to work with. It is imperative that any living situation leave me with the opportunity to garden. I absolutely cannot live with neighbors so close that it takes less than 5 people to span the distance between separate houses.

I can easily live 2 miles from the nearest store, but I believe that 10 miles would be fine (I’ve never done that before so that’s not guaranteed). The only utilities that I must have are access to water (I don’t think I would mind a well), electricity, and an internet connection – although I would prefer a sewer system over a septic tank.

So what’s your ideal? Over the next few weeks I hope to write up the advantages and disadvantages I see in different sizes of cities as well as generic thoughts on the advantages of rural, suburban, and urban settings. Please chime in with any insights or experience you have on the benefits or drawbacks of various living situations.

Categories
politics

Federalist No. 1

Starting on my goal to read the federalist papers and glean a greater understanding of the logic of the founders, today I tackled Federalist No. 1 – the introduction. I like the way that the topic is opened with the admission that noble intent may lead to the wrong side of a great question just as base intent may lead to the right side of the same question and we must therefore look to the truth, and not merely the intent of those who make the argument.

I also enjoyed the predictions of how the public discussion would play out – it sounded very familiar:

. . . we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose. To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives.

I also really liked that despite the goal to lead people to the truth so that they could make up their own mind the bias of the author is freely given:

Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it (the constitution). I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. (emphasis added)

It seems to me a mark of a strong character (and probably a strong position as well) that an author would openly admit their bias on the subject of their writing so that it can be openly challenged. It reminds me of one of my favorite quips if someone says I’m biased about my wife being pretty or my children being smart:

Just because I’m biased does not mean I’m wrong.

Categories
National politics State

Important Changes

In a meeting with LaVarr Webb this morning two topics really stuck with me that seem to illustrate the most important political problems that we face as a nation. The particular issues we talked about were at the level of our state government, but both issues apply equally well to our federal government and often in more local government settings as well.

The first of these two topics that we talked about was the need for ethics reform – specifically gifts to legislators. Webb has close experience with politicians at the legislature over many years and he talked about how those legislators are often frustrated that people view or suspect them as being corrupt. He said that in his experience they rarely are corrupt but he believes that they can and should address this issue because our state legislature does not have strong safeguards in place against corruption in the event that someone were corrupt. I immediately thought about the Change Congress movement being pushed by Larry Lessig. Lessig articulates the problem as being one caused not by bad people but by “good people working in a bad system.” I believe that his primary method for changing the system is applicable to all such cases. We should persuade our candidates to commit to:

    • Not take lobbyist or PAC money
    • Ban earmarks (this problem seems most acute at the federal level)
    • Support public financing of campaigns.

As citizens we can request that our candidates make these commitments. This can be a filter by which we can determine for ourselves which candidates are serious about changing the bad system. Personally, I will never support a candidate who will not commit to these principles over a candidate who has made this commitment. (And I will ask any candidate I hope to support to make this kind of commitment.)

We later got onto the issues of the violation of the principles of federalism. This is when government tramples the rights of individuals or lower levels of government. This happens so frequently in small ways that many people think it is how the system is supposed to work. Here the solution is that citizens must insist at each level of government that individual liberty and the sovereignty of lower levels of government be carefully protected. Obviously there are some cases where the good of the whole overrides the choice of a part but everyone should be as careful to guard against running over their neighbors with the ideas that they favor as they are at complaining when they feel imposed upon by the ideas of others (and sometimes we need to be more vocal when we feel that we are being bullied by the enforced ideals of others).

Categories
culture politics

Put Virtual Politics on the Ground

I have been thinking about the words of Tom Friedman when he wrote about what he calls Generation Q.

I am impressed because they are so much more optimistic and idealistic than they should be. I am baffled because they are so much less radical and politically engaged than they need to be. . .

The Iraq war may be a mess, but I noticed at Auburn and Ole Miss more than a few young men and women proudly wearing their R.O.T.C. uniforms. Many of those not going abroad have channeled their national service impulses into increasingly popular programs at home like “Teach for America,” which has become to this generation what the Peace Corps was to mine.

It’s for all these reasons that I’ve been calling them “Generation Q” — the Quiet Americans, in the best sense of that term, quietly pursuing their idealism, at home and abroad.

But Generation Q may be too quiet, too online, for its own good, and for the country’s own good. . .

America needs a jolt of the idealism, activism and outrage (it must be in there) of Generation Q. That’s what twentysomethings are for — to light a fire under the country. But they can’t e-mail it in, and an online petition or a mouse click for carbon neutrality won’t cut it. They have to get organized in a way that will force politicians to pay attention rather than just patronize them.

Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy didn’t change the world by asking people to join their Facebook crusades or to download their platforms. Activism can only be uploaded, the old-fashioned way — by young voters speaking truth to power, face to face, in big numbers, on campuses or the Washington Mall. Virtual politics is just that — virtual.

I am among those who feels right at home in the world of the internet whether I am pursuing my political interests, searching for some bit of information or trying to decide about my next major purchase. I see lots of political dialog on the internet, but I also realize that all the blog posts in the world don’t have the same power as a meeting with candidates or elected officials to discuss an issue. I know that talking about liking one candidate or position will never have the same reach of influence that speaking with my wallet has.

The main stream media is spending more and more time talking about the power of internet based politics and the parties and candidates are getting better at engaging within this new medium of communication. Perhaps it is easy for us “digital natives” to mistake this as evidence that this has become the primary mode for political action. We put ourselves and our views in danger unless we take time to remember that the primary means of achieving political influence is and always will be the same as it was when our country was founded. Writing posts may have replaced writing tracts or pamphlets, but the real power to make things happen comes in gathering together to share ideas so that people will be energized to go out and vote at the ballot box and also lend their resources (time, energy, and money) to bring about the goals that they had previously only talked about.

Categories
culture politics

Someone to Believe In

After talking about my opposition to Rudy Giuliani and the dangers of the “select someone electable” mentality I thought it would be a nice change to talk about the kind of candidate that I would like to back. My example is Sarah Palin, the Governor of Alaska, who I recently learned about. Much of the discussion about cleaning up national politics comes in the form of the need for an outsider or a newcomer. Condidates in both parties like to lay claim to being an agent for change. One of the tough aspects of political office is that the outsider who gets elected often becomes an insider very quickly. Governor Palin is a refreshing exception to this trend. Before her election she gained a reputation as a whistleblower against insider political activities. After a year of being governor she shows no signs of resting in her efforts.

This week, it was Palin who singlehandedly killed the leading symbol of Republican spending excess in Washington: the Bridge to Nowhere.

The Bridge to Nowhere was actually a state project, to be built with funds earmarked by the state’s powerful Congressman Don Young. Last week, Palin killed the $398 million bridge to Gravina Island (pop. 50), directing that the money be spent on more “fiscally responsible” projects.

In a small state that generally votes Republican, the divide between Alaska’s Republican elected officials could not be more clear. Palin was elected as a whistleblower, and routinely rails against the state’s transactional Republican establishment. Don Young has screamed “It’s my money!” when conservative lawmakers challenge his pet projects and blamed the Republican loss of Congress on conservatives who want to cut spending. And Senator Ted Stevens’ record as a porker is rivaled only by the patron saint of the West Virginia highway system.

With Palin now in office for the better part of a year, we have some data points to evaluate whose brand of politics works better. A poll out last month put Palin’s approval rating at 84%, and Fred Barnes has noted that she probably America’s most popular elected official in any party.

One of the things that makes newcomers become insiders is the perception that you have to join the system to get things done, and that you have to bring home the pork to get re-elected. Real change can only come about when we start electing people who are more interested in doing the right thing than they are in retaining their seat.

For voters, we have to vote consistent with our conscience even at the cost of losing the election. If the majority of the country disagrees with me then I have to accept that. I don’t do any favors by voting for someone who can win if they are not the kind of person that I would like to see in office. The political image of this country is taken from the reflection we cast in the voting booths. If we intentionally distort the reflection we can’t know the real character of the country – all we can see is that it is grotesque, like the monsters we see in fun-house mirrors.

Categories
culture

Community News Organization

I read a blog post on 10 things about the future of newspapers which seemed to paint a clear picture of what news can and should be like in our current age. One of the key points was that newspapers need to be focussed on items of local importance because national news is pretty well covered already. It struck me that a local orientation to a newspaper could be a very valuable tool in building a community. At times it might seem necessary to “make news.” If that were done by using slow-news days to bring a spotlight on areas of the community that often go unnoticed (like local artists, or community projects) it might help people feel connected to each other in a more meaningful way.

Among the 10 things there is a heavy emphasis on embracing many things that might otherwise be considered competition by the newspaper – search engines, and online advertisements may seem to cut into the potential revenue that is needed to run the paper. Bloggers and other amateurs of reporting might be seen as competitors to paid reporters when they could be used as allies. In the current world of publishing there are also more opportunities for publishing in a variety of media formats (text, audio, and video) and through many different means of distribution (print, rss, website, podcasting, mobile devices). These same technologies open doors to allow more participation and interaction with the audience (comment boards as well as letters to the editor, even the possibility of allowing people to submit images, audio, or video in response to what has been published) so that the newspaper is really a vehicle for discussion instead of becoming a platform for declaration.

This gets me interested in breaking Lehi away from the publishing center of Utah County. Currently we have a town section that gets published weekly by the Provo Daily Herald. With a population of 30,000 there is no reason that Lehi should not have an independent community news organization. We should have no aspirations to compete with the New York Times, or even the Daily Herald, but there is nothing to stop us from controlling our own platform for local news coverage.

I will have to write about how a Lehi community news organization might be formed, run, and financed and see if the idea is viable.

Categories
culture politics

Community: Ritual

Ritual in a community includes parades, holidays, and customs which bind the community together. The rituals of a community help to create a shared identity. Some examples might include the Fourth of July or Christmas. While the entire nation (which is a community) celebrates the Fourth of July we can see the identity of smaller communities in the way they celebrate this national holiday. Some might have a parade while others have fireworks. There may be memorial breakfasts or inspirational speakers.

These rituals help to define the way we see and portray ourselves. They help to give expression to our shared values. This is a useful way of helping newcomers become a part of the shared identity. It is also a useful way to participate and add their unique perspective to the existing community.

I wrote this last week as part of my community series – this morning I found this post about ritual.

No national or cultural identity can survive without ritual, even if the group remains in its own country.

Americans knew this until the era of anti-wisdom was ushered in by the baby boomer generation in the 1960s and ’70s. We always had national holidays that celebrated something meaningful.

. . . Congress made a particularly foolish decision to abolish the two greatest presidents’ birthdays as national holidays and substituted the meaningless Presidents Day. Beyond having a three-day weekend and department store sales, the day means nothing.

Columbus Day is . . . not politically correct.

Christmas has become less nationally meaningful as exemplified by the substitution of “Happy Holidays” for “Merry Christmas.”

Memorial Day . . . fewer and fewer Americans visit military cemeteries just as fewer communities have Memorial Day festivities.

(It also has some nice stuff for my post tomorrow.)

Categories
culture politics

Community: Entertainment

Entertainment could also be called arts and entertainment or any number of other names. It consists of things like theater, art, and parks. Essentially it provides the infrastructure for relaxation and play. Relaxation and playing are important aspects of our lives. People will find ways to play and relax on their own, but a community where there is little or no opportunity for shared play/relaxation will be an incomplete or out-of-balance community at best.

Things like theater generally combine commerce with entertainment, which is fine, but there should also be some opportunity for uncommercialized entertainment as well. The reason for this is not simply that some people can’t or won’t afford the entertainment which has a commercial element, but also because I believe there is a different kind of fun when all connection to commerce is removed. Sometimes people just need to get away from commerce.

Categories
culture politics

Community: Commerce

Commerce is the means by which members of the community interact economically. When building or running a community it is not likely that you would have to actively promote commerce but it is important to be aware that commercial interactivity is a basic element of community and should be a consideration as various decisions are made regarding other aspects of community. In a physical community it may be helpful to have areas where commerce is a central activity.

Commerce generally involves financial transactions, but it can include non-financial transactions as well.