Two little letters to the NYTimes - at least they are making me think (!)

NOTE: I wrote this in 2012 and never hit "publish", so it's been sitting on my blog for five years, unpublished.  Just re-read it and thought it was worth adding to the litanies. If you happen to read this just be sure to note the time context - it's five years old today.

In today's NYTimes, the article entitled, The Elusive Big Idea, got me to thinking - which is a bit ironic given the theme of this article about how our innundation with information is crowding out our ability to identify or deal with actual ideas. I had already started making some notes about this idea in a slightly different form, and reading this article prompted me to revisit my thoughts and synthesize them a bit, leading the following letter to the editor:

To the editor:
Like so many of today's technological marvels, easy access to information makes it easy for people to gather and consume information, which, upon its regurgitation, can create the illusion of competence. Snowboards, voice pitch correction software, and digital photography all share a similar basis for their rapid adoption and popularity. One no longer need bother with spending ten thousand hours of effort to develop true expertise, the kind that others may recognize and rightfully respect. Now one need only buy some software, or keep track of the latest fashion trends, celebrity tweets and their social circle's gossip in order to create the appearance of expertise, gaining all the approbation and respect of their peers with none of the work - or actual utility to society. So here is technology eroding yet another of our faculties. Whether or not this is inherently a bad thing will, unfortunately, not be knowable until it is too late to do anything about it.

And here is one from a couple days ago:

To the editor:
While it's heartening to hear President Obama speak out against the egregious behavior that defines much of what goes on in Washington these days, it is less clear what the path forward is. Could it be that we are bumping up against an entitlement mindset of a different sort than the one everyone has been talking about lately? Could it be that our emphasis on diversity, which has been a huge benefit in making our nation a more just and equal place for all, has also created an entitlement mindset when it comes to holding one's ground when engaged in a debate? After all, we are each entitled to our opinion. It seems to me that this mindset has found its way into every facet of our culture resulting in all manner of unusual expressions of independent thinking and behavior. While this is not a bad thing on its own, it unfortunately means that we have political factions that are unwilling to yield, negotiate in good faith, or truly compromise because, after all, everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

And finally, a little rant about plausible denial. In Mississippi last week a white teenager in a pickup truck can be seen on a hotel security camera deliberately running down a black man who was walking alone, apparently injured after a previous encounter with the teenager and his buddy. The teenager was immediately apprehended and is being held on bail. His lawyer issued a statement saying that the incident was not racially motivated, despite eyewitness accounts of the teenager bragging about how "I killed me a nigger" in a bar later that evening. Whether in fact he did say these things, and many other facts of this case, will all come out eventually in court. But one fact can never, truly, be known, and that is what was in the heart of this young man when he committed this crime. The difference is potentially huge. If in fact it can be shown that his actions were racially motivated then in addition to murder he would be guilty of committing a hate crime, which carries with it significant additional penalties. Proving that may be difficult, though, as long as he and his lawyer can plausibly deny that any such motivation was present, and that instead it was just a random, senseless act of violence.

We see our political and business leaders engage in this nonsense all the time - "I didn't know" or "I can't recall" have become the two most abused phrases in the history of mankind. They are being used to cover for all manner of egregious behavior and allow their utterers to avoid the accountability that should rightfully be laid at their feet. It is time for some new laws. "I didn't know" should be rendered entirely impotent as an excuse for not being responsible for one's personal actions whether those actions occur in the context of one's personal life, on the job, or on the behalf of a political consituency.

2017: is civil war even a possibility?

Two articles in the last 24 hours have made me wonder about this. First there was the long one in Politico by Nick Hanauer about how inequality is the real enemy of our republic, not Trump and his fellow whackos in the whitehouse. Next up a story in the NYTimes about a bathroom bill in Texas that would force transgender people to use the bathroom that corresponds with the gender on their birth certificates, rather than their chosen gender identity.

Previous articles this week mentioned California's legislature banning state-funded trips to Texas, as well as an exodus of conservatives from California who were heading to Texas. So there would appear to be a pretty clear political line between these two states, Austin and perhaps the Central Valley notwithstanding. 

Last there is the CalExit movement, which is popping up now and again - basically a group of people who would like to see California secede from the US, taking its 40+million residents and its sixth-largest-in-the-world economy with it. What we'd do about water I don't know exactly, but directionally it would otherwise appear to have a little merit, perhaps. 

Which brings me back to Hanauer and his positing the potential for civil war - actual war - here. Suddenly I found myself feeling better about living in Cali. Like racing, wars and who wins them generally end up being a function of manpower and money. Mostly money. And guess what? We have more of both than any other state in the union. 

Where things get interesting is when you think about an actual conflict, rather than a political movement, being the driver for reorganizing our country. If push came to shove, who would land where? 

Texas and much of the South would logically band together, being more similar than not. Although I imagine Texas oil billionaires wouldn't much like the idea of "carrying" a bunch of poor southerners from the country's most impoverished states. And what would Florida do? The sunny outlier in an otherwise fairly homogenous southern swath of the country - it'd be interesting to see where they sided in this. 

California would be the liberal anchor, and might well attract joiners up the West Coast to Washington, and possibly even to the east with Nevada and its Sin City (why not?), and New Mexico (nearly broke. Ok. Sure). Arizona? Hmmm - they like the idea of a wall, and increasing police powers to stop and frisk for no apparent reason at all. So they'd go in with Texas, I imagine. 

Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, and Idaho - they'd all be in it together, as the last of the Wild West frontier. Colorado? Island in the middle, I'm guessing. 

Plains states would join up with Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan and Minnesota to form the "real" Midwest; and cut Indiana loose in the process. 

They'd join forces with Kentucky, Tennessee, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West Virginia and maybe mainland New York (which would be left behind by NYC after it declared independence). 

New York City would be the East Coast version of California, attracting hangers on states because of its economic and political might. Geographically the bloc would include all of New England; although that may not fly among many of the original 13 colonies. This isn't their first rodeo, having  already gone through this independence thing once.

So not exactly sure how that would shake out. Maybe it'd follow similar lines to how fans stack up behind the Jets or the Patriots. 

So there you have it - a civil war that results in the fragmentation of the US into five or six mega states: The West; The South; The Frontier; The Midwest; Colorado (really?); The Ozarks; Gotham; and New England. 

Each would be econcomically independent, and would be free to set it's own "national" laws and regulations to cover social policy and things like marijuana and assisted end-of-life. There would be shared military, although I imagine a significant redistribution of contracts would end up taking place. People would move to the state where they felt like their tribe was, and the work they do would be available. And each state would be free to set up policies to tax and care for their people however they felt was best. 

We are a diverse nation, for sure. I wonder how long we will be able to keep it together.