We Can Do Better

After following the Republican Convention this week in New York, a few things have become increasingly clear to me. One of the foremost of these is the great difficulty that the Democratic Leadership has in attempting to organize and focus its followers. Looking at the motley assortment of protesters that took to the streets this week, I was surprised to see the lack of cohesion among the various groups. Most of the protesters belong to single-issue groups, and none of them have much to agree on, except for one thing. They are united in their opposition, indeed their hatred of George W. Bush, his administration, and to a certain extent, the USA. Apparently, the only effective way for Democrats to organize their constituency is to fan the flames of this hatred. They console each other in their "victim" status, and want someone else to solve their problems and make things "right". The Democrats' message appears to focus simply on what they are not. There are no new ideas presented, no constructive solutions proposed. Indeed, this party's platform is to criticize the actions that have been taken, and pick apart those times when things have not gone according to plan. It's so easy to say that you would have done things differently, especially with the benefit of hindsight.

In doing so, Democrats have only defined themselves as the party of opposition and negativity. There is no guiding principle with which they can unite their followers, at least none that they dare mention. Because their base is so fragmented, the only platform that they can adopt is make concessions to all of the individual parties involved, which is expensive and often contradictory. What the Democrats do not want to say is that their party's ideals consist of growth in government bureaucracy, redistribution of income, and an anything-goes, lowest common denominator, relativist morality. Not exactly the stuff of true, daring leadership.

I just came across a very interesting website (http://www.clusterbigip1.claritas.com/MyBestSegments/Default.jsp?ID=20) that has segmented the US population into different socio-economic segments. You can input any zip code, and it will provide you with the type and mix of people living there. It provides a very interesting look into the groups that make up the America that we live in.

TOD is another concept that fascinates me. I'm really tired of suburban sprawl. I don't like going to every neighborhood and finding it exactly the same as every other bland, nondecript collection of parking lots and big boxes. I know that this will probably sound funny coming from me, since I'm usually the one to defend the status quo if it reflects people's individual choices. However, I hope that the next wave in the "American Dream" begins to shift demand toward more liveable communities that require less auto travel and more interaction on the streets with your neighbors. I think mixed use neighborhoods are a fantastic idea, and it wasn't until I moved to Palo Alto that I first saw how it could really work well. I think that our current suburban lifestyles are harming the fabric of our communities. When one leaves home, they get in their car, drive for fifteen minutes, take care of their business, and then isolate themselves in their vehicles again until they return to their private home. The opportunity to meet new and interesting people and exchange ideas with them is virtually nil. Safety is cited as a concern, but I would argue that communities where people know each other personally provide for a very effective "watchdog" system where people take care of and protect each other better.
One of the major criticisms of TOD is that it also requires denser living patterns than people in this country are used to. In order to preserve individual freedoms, I believe that we need to make a stronger effort to make our city centers into interesting places where people will naturally want to congregate. We should encourage smart development that provides ample housing (at generally lower prices) for younger workers and families. It's interesting that housing prices are often highest in urban areas, yet this hasn't always provided motivation for increased development in downtown areas.
One idea that I found fascinating is the concept of carfree cities. You can find a great deal of information about them at the site www.carfree.com. Although many of the suggestions are unworkable, such a city would (to my mind) provide a very high quality of life and strong community. Coupling such a system with flexible (or fractional) car ownership would make this scenario workable, and would save individuals a tremendous amount in transportation expenses. We rarely think about the true costs of owning our own vehicles. If only we had an alternative that really worked, and didn't inconvenience us too much.

After having spent a week on a small fishing boat off of the coast of Kona, I took great interest in a recent Wired article that discussed the latest advances in acquaculture. You can find it here: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.05/fish.html
In some ways, the advent of these huge, underwater fish farms will be a great tragedy for many small fishermen, as these practices will likely depress the market price for their catch in the short term. On the other hand, it will likely create a resurgence in the quality of many fisheries. As global demand for animal protein increases, so will the aggregate demand for fish, which may keep prices in equilibrium, at least enough for some to maintain a traditional way of life. I imagine that "line-caught" or "non-GMO" fish will also command a premium in the market. You'll probably still be able to pay ridiculous restaurant prices for your seared ahi, although it will be labeled differently, much as the day-boat scallops are marked up today.