LJWorld.com

I have noted in a number of recent blogs a tendency to describe us, the citizens of the United States, in a number of very unflattering terms. Little in the way of explanation is offered. The authors seem to believe that everyone knows. I don’t!

We are despoilers of the planet and singularly responsible for climate change. We are also very greedy and singularly caused the economic meltdown experienced last year. I could go on but I think these examples suffice. Because of these transgressions, we owe the world “big time” for the injury that resulted.

Are these accusations emanating from the Democratic Party? Are they the “bible” of the “Move On” faction? Is somebody at KU teaching this philosophy? Do these concepts come form the international community?

I sure would like someone to help me understand from where these allegations come. Please do not send me a massive set of internet addresses unless you provide a pedigree for those addresses. I would prefer words explaining the ideas. Certainly, if you believe these charges you know why you do!

Recently there were a series of letters to the editor addressing a performance of Vespers at KU. I saw the ad but did not attend. The letters concerned the content of the program. Apparently, a Michael Jackson song was included. Now the term Vespers pertains to the ecclesiastical and means a worship service held in the late afternoon or evening in many Western Christian churches. A Michael Jackson song would not seem to be included in that definition. It would likely not be considered religious by those of faith.

Now, I have nothing against Michael Jackson. However, I think there is a very real issue here - just who decides the meaning of words in our society? If I had attended, I would not have expected such a song. One of the writers apparently did not either. Two letter writers defended the performance because the song had merit. Great! However, if we are to arbitrarily redefine terms, how will we communicate effectively? Misunderstanding and potential conflict are a direct consequence of the arbitrary use of words.

Perhaps the writer who suggested a political intent could be correct. You would think that a university would understand the importance of language. The decision to include content inconsistent with the meaning of the term used to describe the event would suggest the writer might be correct.

Unlike historic budgeting methodology the City of Lawrence has not been charging enough for basic water services to cover our annual financial needs. In the latest of social experimentation they have planned for way too much income from residential homes who irrigate. That did not happen and now we have a significant shortfall.

Why have we heard nothing? Because the city doesn’t want to admit the level of social experimentation and income transfer buried in the residential water budget. In essence they argue that those who irrigate cost more and should pay more. Not unreasonable. Unfortunately they argue that those who irrigate should essentially pay for all future growth. That is not. I should mention that the city does not charge commercial users anywhere near what it charges residential users for an equivalent use of water. The magnitude of these irresponsible assumptions has now cost us and everyone will end up paying when we have to raise the water rates even higher.

Maybe we should leave social experimentation and income transfer practices to areas of our budget not dependent on long hot summers. Maybe our impact from climate change will be the other way. Maybe we should not soak (intended) those in West Lawrence where the lack of trees makes irrigation essential. Maybe we should charge commercial users more.

Another interesting exchange - in a recent blog one commenter expressed a view that those on the west side of town exhibit an extravagant lifestyle.

I have also heard criticism of the size of the houses on the west side of town. I never really thought about it as to me they are reasonably consistent with the more modern homes found in many suburbs and towns.

I wonder where these feelings originate. Being relatively new and a certified hermit I really have not a clue. Is this a widely held view? If so, what are the factors contributing to it? I need an education!

Today is Memorial Day. I listened to President Obama’s remarks at Arlington National Cemetery. I was impressed and, as a veteran, appreciative. I note that locally several of the veterans’ service organizations conducted ceremonies at our cemeteries. I searched the city web site and the LJW web site and could not find that our city had anything to say about the event (except to announce office closures).

That is interesting as our city has a lot to say about a lot of things. Hardly a week goes by without a proclamation or some form of celebration. I believe a recent one was about “Earth Day”. Apparently, we have nothing to say about the service of our veterans. I have asked around and apparently, it has been that way for some time.

I cannot help but wonder if there is not some tie back to the sixties. At that time, I remember service men and women being reviled because they wore the uniform of their country. I am told there was considerable dissension here in Lawrence. Emotions ran high. There were many who had trouble differentiating the war from the warrior.

Do we have a legacy of that here in Lawrence, today? We are a progressive city. There have been strong feelings against the war in Iraq. Many of our citizens do not like wars. Could we still be having trouble separating wars from the warriors?

I believe that President Obama considers himself a progressive. Considering his remarks, perhaps it is again OK for progressives to acknowledge our veterans. It would be nice if our city could at least issue some form of proclamation recognizing their service. Who could oppose such an action?