So you want compromise? Really?

We've heard a lot in recent years about how the American electorate is tired of the partisan bickering and polarized politics.   Americans want cooperation to resolve problems and an end to the current governmental paralysis, or so we've been told.

Recently, Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts.  Brown is an avowed conservative and the election sent shock waves across the country.  It was the end of the filibuster-proof 60th vote in the Senate.

This week, Senator Brown voted with the Democratic majority (along with 4 other Republicans) in favor of a job creation bill endorsed by the Obama Administration.  Was that vote the beginning of a new "bipartisan" approach?   Was it evidence of an attempt to move away from polarization?   Nah, fuggedabout it.

Almost immediately, Senator Brown was castigated in the blogosphere and elsewhere by the right-wing ideologues that helped elect him.   He was a traitor to the cause, a RINO (Republican in Name Only), and doomed to be a one-term Senator.

I don't know; perhaps the shock is because so seldom have we seen any cracks in the GOP wall in the Congress.   The GOP is much more disciplined than the Democratic Party.  

I'd prefer to think that this vote by Brown is an indication that he might actually be an "independent" Republican and will vote for his State's interest over party interest.   That would be a breath of fresh air.

Everybody's Got An Opinion

So President Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize for 2009 and it seems like an awful lot of people have their underwear in knots over it. I was as surprised as anyone else when I heard the announcement, but I don't understand much of the reaction as presented by the major media outlets. Everyone seems to have opinions that they have no problem sharing with the rest of us. It's not really surprising. People in this country have opinions on just about everything, and most are not reluctant to "educate" everyone else about it.

There have been "man on the street" interviews with people, talking heads on commentary programs, etc. The loudest of the opinions seems to come down to a perception that the Prez hasn't done "enough" to warrant such an award. Like those folks on the street get a vote for Nobel Prizes. We are a society of critics and most of the critics think their opinions are much more valid than the next critic's view. I call it "the center of the universe" complex.

I can't argue that Obama has had a string of successes in the realm of peace in the past 9 or so months. I have no idea what factors the Nobel people consider in making the Peace Prize award. I can think of one possible reason for their decision. Comparison to the prior President, who made no effort to foment peace anywhere in his eight years. The satirical comedian Andy Borowitz made the point elegantly:

"(today)... NASA bombed the moon, saying it was the one spot President Bush missed."

As is often the case with satire, he's not far enough off the mark for it to be funny, per se.

The point is, perhaps President Obama has won this prize not for what he's accomplished so far, but because he's redirected this country's role in the world. Instead of dealing with international problems with landing craft and missiles, he's attempted to resurrect American diplomacy. Instead of unilateral actions, he's invited other nations to join with us to develop responses to world problems. Obama thinks about issues before opening his mouth, unlike his predecessor. The Prez is trying to talk with the Iranian and North Korean governments while the world had come to expect the leader of the most powerful country in the world to strap on his six shooter and rattle some sabers.

It's possible that the Nobel folks in Sweden feel greatly encouraged by that. Maybe it's the differences from the recent past that count most in awarding the Nobel Peace Prize this year.

Footnote: Feeling Safer?

Just days after I wrote about the Phoenix, AZ "protest" involving people carrying firearms, including an assault rifle, outside a visit by President Obama, a prominent travel advisor noticed it as well. It seems that the author of numerous travel guides, Arthur Frommer, has announced he won't be spending any travel money or time in Arizona, since that State's "laws allow people he described as "thugs" and "extremists" to openly carry firearms."

I'm sure that everyone carrying firearms in Arizona under this law is not a "thug" or "extremist." That said, it seems that any "thugs" or "extremists" who choose to carry guns around in Arizona apparently are free to do so. And that doesn't sound particularly safe or reassuring to me. A friend recently told me that "gun nuts" and "nuts with guns" are not the same, but I'm still waiting for him to explain the difference.

I'm with you Arthur.

Feeling Safer?

Well, it's legal to carry around loaded guns, including assault rifles, in Arizona, even at an appearance of President Obama. Sigh. I don't get how more people carrying firearms makes us safer. The main problem for me is that I think that as our population has risen, so too has the number of mentally unbalanced and irrational among us. Even in states that don't allow "concealed carry," the number of people whipping out guns to "settle" disputes is staggering. There was a recent news article in which a few guys got into a fight over cutting in line at a roadside food cart in Tampa, FL. After one punch was thrown, one pulled out a gun, shot the other guy in the dispute, and also shot a bystander, who later died.

I just don't get how adding more guns, and concealed ones at that, makes any of us safer. It sure doesn't feel safer. Doesn't the Secret Service have enough to do without also having to watch people marching around the perimeter of a Presidential rally with firearms? How many more school kids in Chicago are going to die in gun violence before Americans get fed up with the National Rifle Association and its unbridled and well-funded campaign to put guns in everyone's hand?

The reality in which we live in 2009 is vastly different than the America of the late 18th century when the Constitution (including the Second Amendment) was adopted. Even if the Founding Fathers really believed everyone should have the right to own a firearm back then, I sincerely doubt they anticipated the largely non-agricultural and densely populated nation we've become. Furthermore, they certainly wouldn't have anticipated the changes in the weapons themselves. I might not object to everyone having a musket to carry around, as opposed to an AK47 assault rifle. The musket took a long time to load, long enough for the others in line for the food cart to get out of the way. Or to beat the crap out of the musket carrier as he was reloading...

Teach Your Children

Have I mentioned that I bike ride most every day (weather permitting)? It's the only form of exercise that I actually enjoy, and I try to get out every morning to do about a 6 1/2 mile course. Much of my route is in a local park, which has really nice walking/biking paths. The pavement is divided like a road with a yellow line down the center and there are mileposts marking distances throughout.

I normally ride in the morning and that generally means there are only a few people using the park, walking dogs, jogging, or just walking. It's pretty nice and everyone stays out of everyone else's way. Some days, my ride is delayed for one reason or another, and I don't get out for my ride until afternoon or early evening. Often, those rides are not so much fun.

Later in the day, when many more people are using the park, I'm finding many more people who don't have a clue how to use public spaces. It can be mothers with strollers, walking down the middle of the path, nearly blocking the way for joggers and bikers. Even worse, I often see two people pushing strollers down the path, side by side, completely blocking the path. Dog walkers with what seem to be 50 foot long leashes, with the walker on one side of the path and the dog about 25 feet off the path on the opposite side. With the leash blocking the path. That's not the dog's fault, it's the owners fault.

My biggest complaint about the clueless way people use public space (like parks) relates to children and they way they aren't getting much, if any, supervision or instruction. It's probably not surprising; if the parents are truly clueless about such things, why would anyone expect them to teach their children?

Today, there were hordes of small children on bikes and roller skates in the park. I'm talking mostly about kids in the 4-8 range on small two wheel bikes. They ride with their heads down, oblivious to what's in front of them, and wander back and forth across the path, not staying to one side or the other. My preference would be the general rules of the road which would suggest (in the U.S.) that you walk/ride on the right and pass on the left. I observed groups of 4-6 young kids scattered around the path, with no visible adult supervision. What supervision there was often was what appeared to be older siblings maybe a quarter mile behind the kids (which is to say there was no supervision).

More disturbingly, there was no education taking place (what President Obama calls "teachable moments"). No one appeared to be taking the time to explain to these young kids how to use the public space, how to share it with others, how to do it safely. It's sad to see this aspect of our community network failing so badly; it's not the schools' responsibility to do this, it's the family that should be teaching these behaviors.

Retired Supreme Court Justice David Souter just the other day gave a speech in which he lamented how little Americans understand about their government. One example is how few people can actually name the three branches of the Federal government. He attributes much of this to the lack of old-fashioned Civics classes in school. Perhaps what I've observed in the park is just a different aspect of what Justice Souter saw in court. Americans don't seem to have even a rudimentary grasp of what's going on around them and how people should interact with others in a socially acceptable and respectful way.

I suppose that if parents are clueless about yielding part of the park path to others, it's no surprise that many of them seem to drive cars the same way. This is just another aspect of what I already wrote about previously, but now it involves the cluelessness of the parents being passed on to their children. It's frustrating. Stephen Josephson talks about the need to "teach your children well," but again, if the parents are clueless, who can expect them to "model" the desired behaviors?

Once again, I have to return to that Ashleigh Brilliant quote: "I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem."