Sharp Scissors

If future archaeologists ever start digging through my yard-- they will have to assume that I'm a cruel sadist. There are beheaded baby chickens scattered in shallow graves all around my house. So, as a message to any future generation that goes prowling with a shovel, let me clarify that I do not take pleasure in killing chickens.

What do you do when you find an injured baby chick that has no hope of survival? Do you let it sit in the sun, trying in vain to stand up, while getting pecked at by its relatives? Or do you put it out of its misery with a quick snip of the scissors?*

And, as I've rambled about before in two earlier posts (part one and part two), there isn't a good answer. I'm faced with two options. Shitty and shittier.

Shitty is listening for hours as the chirps go from desperation to resignation to silence as the life slowly drains from the broken legged, or malnourished, or underdeveloped chick. And shittier is watching as a headless body strives in vain to stand up while the beak opens and closes gasping for air while the beady eyes stare at me in justified accusation.

To cut, or not to cut-- for me, that may be the most challenging moral question of springtime. Luckily I'm not a politician.

On that note, Civil Beat just published my first official column. It's on inequality and why the excise tax is a bad source of funds to repair our crumbling infrastructure on Kaua'i. It builds off of the article I wrote the other week on congestion and prioritizing spending.

We have $100M of necessary infrastructure repairs and a woefully inadequate public transportation system.

So let me clearly say that avoiding the problem completely is akin to the slow, cruel death of neglect.

While I'm critical of the administration's proposal to increase the excise tax-- I respect the fact that they are at least putting forth a solution. Any elected official who opposes the increased excise tax has to simultaneously put forward an idea for where the funding should come from instead. Just saying "no" is a dereliction of duty.

From my perspective, to make up the difference we need at least a 15 cent increase in the gas tax and a one cent increase in the vehicle weight tax.

Yet, making that suggestion is like picking up the scissors, looking into the chicken's eyes, and then making the bloody cut.


* Before anyone accuses me of animal cruelty-- I make sure that the wild chick has no chance of recovery before killing it. The only time I cull chicks is when they are incapacitated by either a broken leg or a broken neck.

Presidents' Day

I'm experimenting with posting at medium.com-- so this post originally appeared there.

Monday is Presidents’ Day. In honor of George Washington’s birthday, it’s the one-day of the year that we’re supposed to reflect on our 240-year experiment in representative democracy.

 Washington’s unanimous election to the presidency represented the final gasp of American unity after the Revolutionary War. Eight years later, he ceded the Presidency to John Adams amidst a deeply divided nation. A division that we have held on to ever since.

The founders of this lasting ideological partisanship are John Adams and Thomas Jefferson — the 2nd and 3rd Presidents' of the United States. They met each other at the Continental Congress in 1775 and became close confidants. Later they worked together to draft the Declaration of Independence and then worked side by side as the diplomatic team in France in 1784 — where they visited each other nearly every day.

In these early years, Adams called Jefferson “one of the choice ones of the Earth” and Jefferson described Adams to James Madison (4th president) as “so amiable, that I pronounce you will love him if you ever become acquainted with him.”

Their relationship began to fray in 1791 when Jefferson publicly inferred that Adam’s writings were “political heresies.” Their growing disagreement was on the role of the central government. In the words of Jefferson:

two political Sects have arisen within the U.S. the one believing that the executive is the branch of our government which the most needs support; the other that… it is already too strong for the republican parts of the constitution.

John Adams was a Federalist who believed in strong central authority and a loose interpretation of the constitution, while Jefferson was the founder of the Republican Party and believed in limited federal powers and a strict interpretation of the constitution.

 With already tense relations, Adams won the presidency against Jefferson in 1797 and then was defeated by Jefferson after just one term. After losing the presidency, Adams left the White House at 4am on the day of the inauguration, beginning more than a decade long estrangement from each other.

 In 1812 Benjamin Rush, a close friend of both, wrote to Adams urging them to rekindle their friendship. Rush would later write to Adams that:

I consider you and him as the North and South Poles of the American Revolution. Some talked, some wrote, and some fought to promote and establish it, but you and Mr. Jefferson thought for us all.

After their reconciliation, Jefferson and Adams spent the next fourteen years engaged in the most monumental intellectual dialogue in history. Their six hundred pages of letters represent the healing of an ideological divide in the pursuit of a better nation.

 Both men died on July 4th, 1826. With bells ringing in the distance to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams’ dying words were: “Jefferson Survives.”

 Since they were 560 miles apart, he had no way to know that Jefferson had died just a few hours earlier.

 As Daniel Webster said in his eulogy to both men:

No two men now live… who, more than those we now commemorate, have… given a more lasting direction to the current of human thought. Their work doth not perish with them… they have died together, and they did on the anniversary of liberty.

Their philosophical brilliance and passion for independence enabled the United States to survive through its infancy. Yet, while they were able to reconcile their differences and resume their close friendship, the dogmatic divide that they spawned lived on.

Fast forward 190 years, and we’re now witnessing the crippling long-term effects of the chronic ideological disease which fuels our political process: from the Supreme Court’s recent decision along partisan lines to block the EPAs new emissions standards, to Hillary Clinton calling Republicans her “enemies,” to every Republican debate turning into a shouting match against President Obama.

As America faces the greatest levels of inequality of any society in the history of civilization, as we look towards declining economic growth in the 21st century, and as we are experiencing a warming planet that our political system seems incapable of dealing with — if you’re not angry, then you’re not paying attention.

And so we choose an ideological hero — on one side we have the hate filled rhetoric spewing from the venomous lips of Ted Cruz and on the other we have the democratic socialism of Bernie Sanders.

If this election season can teach us one thing — it’s that voters want their candidates to be pure. Not to compromise. Because when politics is a war of ideology, compromise is akin to losing.

As Ted Cruz said in Saturday night's debate: "you shouldn't be flexible on core principles."

 Yet, all social progress has been acquired through the long grind of transactional politics. As Otto von Bismark said, “Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best.”

 Even Thomas Jefferson, the mastermind of limited government, could put his ideology aside when necessary. He organized the Louisiana Purchase, which doubled the size of the country and added fifteen new states. Not only was it an unprecedented increase in the scope and authority of the central government, but it could only happen with a loose interpretation of the constitution — which went against his Republican ideals. If Jefferson were to have stuck with ideology, we would be missing a third of our country.

 The issues facing us as we head into the 21st century are just as dire as those facing America as we entered the 19th century. The regulations necessary to combat climate change and inequality are incompatible with a dogmatic opposition to any governmental expansion.

 There’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to reach across the political aisle in our search for solutions. But first, we need to get to the same table.

 In the words of an elderly Thomas Jefferson reflecting on his friend and political opponent John Adams:

I knew him to be always an honest man, often a great one… why should we be dissocialized by mere differences of opinion in politics, in religion in philosophy, or anything else. His opinions are as honestly formed as my own. Our different views of the same subject are the results of a difference in our organization & experience.

While it took Thomas Jefferson and John Adams two decades of political warfare to reconcile their differences — we don’t have that luxury of time to solve our most pressing issues.

As a dying Adams reminisced in his final letter to Jefferson:

Public affairs go on pretty much as usual, perpetual chicanery and rather more personal abuse than their used to be… our American Chivalry is the worst in the world. It has no laws, no bounds, no definitions, it seems to be all a caprice — My love to all your family — and best wishes for your health —  John Adams.

It’s been 190 years. And it’s still a caprice.

So, let’s move on. In celebration of Presidents’ Day, let’s put our ideology aside in the hopes of working together to solve our fundamental issues. Even if it’s only for today.