Two Roads...

CONTENTS · BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD

Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920.

1. The Road Not Taken


TWO roads diverged in a yellow wood,
And sorry I could not travel both
And be one traveler, long I stood
And looked down one as far as I could
To where it bent in the undergrowth; 5

Then took the other, as just as fair,
And having perhaps the better claim,
Because it was grassy and wanted wear;
Though as for that the passing there
Had worn them really about the same, 10

And both that morning equally lay
In leaves no step had trodden black.
Oh, I kept the first for another day!
Yet knowing how way leads on to way,
I doubted if I should ever come back. 15

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference. 20



I had a pleasant lunch and discussion, Friday, with a supporter of the Bridges Project. Though pleasant, we were on different sides of the table in more ways than one. As most of our local residents know, the New Albany City Council recently passed a resolution condemning tolling as the financing arrangement of the Bridges Project. Out of character, regionally, this was the first such official governmental address of that issue to come down on the opposite side of the table from the assumed status quo.

To question the tolls is to question the need for a downtown bridge and the attendant rejiggering of Spaghetti Junction. To question tolls is to lean toward construction of the eastern bridge first and assess the need for a downtown bridge later. To question tolls is to hope that something miraculous may come into being to save us from a slavish addiction to automobile commuting, oh that's right, they're called buses and trains and they're in use in vibrant functioning cities around the world. To question the tolls is to ask for a reassessment of the staus quo.

While I have the utmost respect for my "lunch date", and feel that he is genuinely concerned for the future of our city, region and planet, the Bridges issue, we just saw it from a different point of view, as Dylan might say.

Both of us question what would be the long term results if our position were to prevail. On the pro-two bridge-side one sees the saving in time for morning commuters, a safer and more efficient Kennedy bridge, less danger at Spaghetti Junction, and less pollution as people run their cars' motors at idle.

On the anti-two bridge-side one sees less accommodation to a wasteful transportation system. Such a system undergirds sprawl and its weakening of communities across the land. City budgets are stretched to, and in some cases beyond, the limit to provide services for wider areas. Safety is compromised as personal automobiles fight for a place on highways which more and more resemble freightways for tractor trailers, such a freight system focuses resources away from the efficient transportation of goods along well established rail lines and places this vital piece of our infrastructure needlessly in the background. Intercity travel is limited to highway and air for far too many of our U.S. citizens, including those who live in New Albany and the Metro area. Rail travel has been shut out of the debate for years as the lure of personal transportation has been seen as the American Way.

The main thing I got from my lunch conversation was that we stand here in our time making decisions for those who must follow us. If we look around at what has been handed to us, what we have stumbled into ourselves, can we honestly say that the best we can do is simply offer more of the same? If we would hope to leave our descendants a more livable world, a more responsible stewardship of the environment, a better transportation system; is the best we can do simply adding more lanes to Spaghetti Junction, and cutting a gash through the downtown of our neighboring city of Jeffersonville? Is this what future generations will thank us for?

Or will they, perhaps not thank us, but at least breathe a sigh of relief that we did not drive deeper into the ditch? An article in Sunday's Courier-Journal points out that Louisville is funding the largest initiative for urban parks in North America. Would that have been possible without the amazing, futuristic steps taken in the Nineteenth Century to put into place Frederick Olmsted's park plans? Is there one among us who believes we would or could undertake such a fantastic scheme today as the one Olmsted proposed over a hundred years ago?

And yet, here we stand, in our time, with over $4,000,000,000 and a decision to make. Do we do more of the same, or do we set a different course?

If we build the one east end bridge now and find that traffic problems have been diminished, and we still have over two billion dollars of funds we seem willing to spend, why do we not commit that same amount of money to a truly region-building, economy-boosting, energy-saving, job-producing, neighborhood-preserving, project like light rail and enhanced freight rail reliance?

Take Home Squad Cars

Some discussion at a recent work session of the City Council touched on various ways to trim over budget expenditures within the Police Department. One suggestion was to rein in the use of take-home squad cars. On the surface it just seems logical that such use has a cost and that cost may be a worthwhile place to look for savings. Police representatives counter that it takes more time and money to unload one officer's gear from the squad car getting it ready for the next user, and more importantly, it wastes valuable time in case of an emergency.

Another value in police take-home cars is the deterrent effect of a police car parked in neighborhoods around the city. To some extent, a cop is never off-duty and even if he's in his basement lair watching old episodes of Dragnet, the car is still holding hooligans at bay.

Any and all of the above may be true. One issue involving the use of take-home cars that does not get sufficient consideration is limiting take-home cars to those who actually live in the City of New Albany. If such a car is a perk, give that perk to those officers who live in this city. If take home cars are a deterrent, focus that deterrent in the City they are sworn to protect and defend. If there is a tactical benefit in keeping cars equipped, thereby increasing response time, how better to increase response time than ensuring that those officers with take-home cars live within the City, in close proximity to the area they serve?

State law dictates that residency requirements are not allowed. The Police Department cannot limit employment to city residents. But a policy based on the efficient use of scarce resources could allow officers to make their own choices of where they wish to live if they see value in a take-home squad car. If the City is paying for the car it should derive the benefits of that car. By limiting the use of take-home cars to residents of the City, the Police Department can help to incentivize well-paid officers to contribute more than their employment time to the City's well-being, building stronger safer neighborhoods within the City they are sworn to serve and protect.

Hands Across the Water

A RESOLUTION IN OPPOSITION TO TOLLS ON THE KENNEDY,
CLARK MEMORIAL, AND SHERMAN MINTON BRIDGES AND/OR THE
INTERSTATE CONNECTORS (I-64, I-65, AND I-71) A/K/A “SPAGHETTI
JUNCTION,” AND SUPPORTING MORE CROSS - RIVER
CONNECTIONS.



Sponsored By: Council Members Tina Ward-Pugh, Jim King, Tom Owen,

Hal Heiner, Vicki Welch, Brent Ackerson, Deonte Hollowell, Barbara Shanklin,

Rick Blackwell, Marianne Butler, Bob Henderson, Robin Engel, Stuart Benson,
Kenneth C. Fleming, Mary Woolridge, Kelly Downard, Cheri Bryant Hamilton



WHEREAS, the issues surrounding the Ohio River Bridges Project (ORBP) have
a real and direct impact on the citizens, economy and cultural well-being of our
community; and

WHEREAS, a financing plan that could result in the imposition of tolls on new
and existing Ohio River bridges and/ or tolls on the Interstate connectors (I-64, I-65, and
I-71) a/k/a “Spaghetti Junction” is currently under consideration, and has raised valid
concerns from the citizens of this community; and

WHEREAS, the Ohio River should serve as the center of unity and commerce,
not as a barrier dividing the metropolitan area; and

WHEREAS, the three bridges (Sherman Minton, Clark Memorial and Kennedy)
connecting Kentucky and Indiana are essential links in the growth and economic
development of the community; and

WHEREAS, the ORBP is essential to interstate commerce in the Eastern United
States and should include sufficient Federal funding to avoid shifting the burden of its
cost to local daily commuters; and




WHEREAS, it is fundamentally wrong to begin tolling the existing transportation
infrastructure currently used by hard-working citizens whose livelihood depends on
their daily commute to their jobs in Kentucky and Indiana; and

WHEREAS, the imposition of tolls on existing transportation infrastructure may
threaten businesses and working families of this community.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL OF THE
LOUISVILLE/JEFFERSON COUNTY METRO GOVERNMENT (THE COUNCIL) AS
FOLLOWS:



SECTION I: The Louisville Metro Council, by this Resolution, states that it is opposed
to tolls on the Kennedy Bridge, Clark Memorial Bridge, Sherman Minton Bridge and/or
“Spaghetti Junction,” while still supporting more cross - river connections; and
further states that the best policy for the economic well-being of the region is for the
ORBP to be built without tolls on existing facilities and in affordable phases
commencing with the connection of I-265 between Jefferson County, Kentucky and
Clark County, Indiana..

SECTION II: Notwithstanding the Council’s belief that existing transportation



infrastructure should not be tolled to pay the cost of construction of the ORBP, it is



recognized that circumstances related to the orientation of the new downtown bridge



relative to the existing downtown Kennedy Bridge, e.g., the functional pairing of the two



bridges, could require the tolling of the existing Kennedy Bridge to provide appropriate



parity between the use of the two bridges. In that case, the Council believes any tolls



applied to the Kennedy Bridge should only be implemented when that phase is built and



then only in an amount necessary to recover the cost of the new downtown bridge, less



available federal funding.




SECTION III: This Resolution shall take effect upon its passage and approval.





_______________________________

Kathleen J. Herron

Metro Council Clerk

_____________________________

Thomas L. Owen

President of the Council









_______________________________

Jerry E. Abramson

Mayor



_____________________________

Approval Date





APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALITY:



Michael J. O’Connell

Jefferson County Attorney







BY: ____________________________

G:ResOpposingTollsonOhioRiverBridgesTW-P/ROC/acb09.01.10

G:ResOpposingTolls on ORBP Dr-2 TW-P/ROC/acb09.03.10

A Truthout Opinion Piece by William Rivers Pitt

Due to my sporadic to non-existent appearance here, I realize few will see this piece by Will Pitt. It is shown here in its entirety, although reader comments have not been posted here. Those comments can be seen at Truthout.org along with Pitt's original.

The country seems to be in dangerous waters now, and some of that roiling sea appears locally from time to time. I only hope that Pitt's comments are looked back upon some day in the future as an over-reaction to too much cable TV and reading of internet screed, not as prophesy.

_______________________________

SATURDAY 24 JULY 2010
Share347 The Dog Whistles
Friday 23 July 2010

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Op-Ed



(Photo: VickyTH)
It is all too tempting to dismiss the far-right Teabagger legions and their idiot media allies as nothing more than a band of brain-addled yahoos who regularly make solar flare-sized fools of themselves in ways undreamed of by the Founders. I've mocked them a time or three myself; it's almost impossible not to. When a Tea Party web forum goes into paroxysms of fear and loathing about an Obama-led fascist takeover of America because they read a 2007 satirical article from the Onion and thought it was real, all you can do is put your head in your hands and thank God for showing us His sublime sense of humor.
Then, of course, there is the ridiculous Breitbart/Fox News farce regarding former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod and her alleged black-on-white reverse racism. Unless you've been living in a cave for the last few days, you probably know the story already, but just in case: after the NAACP (correctly) accused the Tea Party of being a fundamentally racist organization, a right-wing fraud of a blogger named Andrew Breitbart heavily edited a video of Sherrod to make it look like she was admitting to having deliberately screwed a white farmer because he was white. The full video shows Sherrod going on to say that she did in fact help that farmer, that she learned from the experience and grew from it, and that she and the farmer became great friends. The video still cost Sherrod her USDA job, at least for now, because Fox News took the Breitbart video and ran it across the sky with enough volume to cause Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to go into total bonehead mode and fire her.
Once everybody realized they'd been duped by Breitbart and Fox News - and a hat-tip to CNN and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution for doing the heavy lifting to expose the story for the bag of crap that it was - everybody backpedaled and apologized to Sherrod...everybody except Breitbart and Fox, that is. They pretty much said the whole thing was the fault of the NAACP and Obama for promoting reverse racism in America. Yeah, they actually did, which makes you wonder what one has to do to lose credibility in the realm of right-wing news. Andrew Breitbart and Roger Ailes could bend over double and take a dump on their own faces in the middle of the Washington Mall, and they'd still have plenty of people who treat their swill as if it were holy writ.
Get Truthout in your inbox every day! Click here to sign up for free updates.
So, yeah, it can be funny, it can be silly, and it can be (and often is) simply mind-boggling. After a while, all the screaming and blabbering about Obama being a fascist racist socialist Muslim terrorist tyrant who wants to destroy America and Christianity turns into only so much noise that can be all too easily dismissed as the nonsense it is.
Dismiss it too easily or too quickly, however, and you'll miss the dog whistle buried in the message. I hadn't heard of the term "dog whistle" until I saw a disturbing post on the web forum DemocraticUnderground, but the term perfectly describes the phenomenon. Wikipedia describes the term thusly:
Dog-whistle politics, also known as the use of code words, is a type of political campaigning or speechmaking employing coded language that appears to mean one thing to the general population but has a different or more specific meaning for a targeted subgroup of the audience. The term is an analogy to dog whistles built in such a way that humans cannot hear them due to their high frequency, but dogs can.
The DU post referring to a "dog whistle" was highlighting a recent broadcast of Pat Robertson's "700 Club." During this particular broadcast, author Eric Metaxas was being interviewed about his new biography of attempted Adolf Hitler assassin Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Metaxas' book paints Bonhoeffer as a prophet of God who was doing holy work through his plot to kill Hitler. Bonhoeffer, a trained theologian who resisted the Nazis based on his Christian faith, has been a revered figure in many religious circles ever since his death, so a book calling him a holy prophet isn't wildly out of line on its face.
But here's the thing. During the interview, descriptions of fascism and tyranny were used extensively. Again, given that the topic dealt with Hitler and Nazi Germany, the use of this language isn't immediately improper...except when it's in the context of the kind of rhetoric used by Pat Robertson, Fox News and bloggers like Andrew Breitbart to describe President Obama. The interview basically stated that it is the holy work of any good Christian to assassinate a fascist tyrant, and given the serial ways these right-wing media people have used those exact terms to describe the president, it is a pretty short leap to realize the "700 Club" was essentially sending the message that whoever puts a bullet in Obama will be considered a saint on the level of Bonhoeffer.
And who was this dog whistle aimed at? There are many potential candidates, as evidenced recently in Sarah Palin's former stomping grounds in Alaska. Tea Party backers of right-wing Senate candidate Joe Miller staged a march during a rally for Miller. Many of the people in that march carried Miller signs, American flags...and assault weapons. You can watch a video of the march here.
This is far from the first time Tea Party people have brandished weapons at public rallies, and most of them are you're typical armchair warriors, all flash and no substance, and only the outline of a real threat. It only takes one, however, to hear the dog whistle and decide to take on God's holy work.
A lot of these people are fools, and listening to them is like being inside someone else's headache. It's not all fun and laughs, though. The dog whistles are sounding loud and clear, if you have the right kind of ears to hear them.

This work by Truthout is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial 3.0 United States License.

Support Truthout's work with a $10/month tax-deductible donation today! 15diggsdigg
»

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

Juneteenth

Link to Juneteenth.

Extra Info for Thursday

Before the City Council meeting, Thursday May 20, the Council will hold a work session which is open to the public. The purpose of the session is to see a presentation on the Medical Trust plan offered by the Indiana Association of Cities and Towns. While such plans have a track record of controlling medical insurance costs, one of the largest expenditures for municipal government, it is a newly available option in Indiana. In recent years New Albany has spent in excess of three million dollars annually to offer this important benefit to its employees. Many health insurance plans were hit with premium increases in the 20% range. You may recall some plans in California asking for increases near 40%. Increases at these levels are unsustainable and threaten the very notion of employer-provided health care. Personally, I have no affinity for employer-sponsored health insurance anyway, but that is the box we are in for now.

The linked article on the IACT Medical Trust points to increases in the mid single-digit range, still an increased cost, but significantly less onerous than what may have hit municipalities in other health insurance plans. If we can find a way to offer comprehensive health care benefits to City employees, while limiting cost increases, other vital City services may not feel the sting of budget cuts, or at least those cuts may not need to be as deep.

It is time to look for better options than we have currently.

I would encourage any who are interested in fiscal responsibility to attend this meeting which I am sure will be informative.

It will begin at 6:00 PM in the Assembly Room, the regular Council chamber.

Dr. Stone's Unfinished Business

Early last year the New Albany City Council looked at the issue of universal health care. It passed a resolution in supoort of single-payer health coverage for all U.S. citizens. With that vote, New Albany became only the third city in the state to join many other cities across the nation in support of this basic human right. The presenter at that meeting was Dr. Rob Stone the director of Hoosiers for a Commonsense Health Plan.

Although a health insurance reform bill was passed, Dr. Stone continues to work for universal coverage. In an article published Wednesday in The Huffington Post, Dr. Stone said, "That's why we say, Healthcare Reform, We're STILL FOR It... and we're not done yet."