Let's Get a Move On

The Nokia Theatre in downtown Los Angeles opened last week to an array of concerts that included both the Eagles and the Dixie Chicks and is selling out its shows on a nightly basis. What is surprising is that this construction project was able to open on time. Far too many construction projects recently are failing to meet their scheduled finish dates due to the increasing and overwhelming “red tape” that government agencies require companies to wade through. As a current employee in the construction industry it is often maddening at the inefficiency and lack of urgency different government agencies show off. The age old expression is “time is money,” however that does not apply when discussing government workers since they have a very high job security and their salaries are basically set in stone no matter of their output of work. Many workers have no incentive to work hard or to work with private contractors to get projects completed in a timely fashion because it is easier for them to simply take their time.

In order to correct this trend something needs to be done. However the only people that have the power to enact new rules and laws are the government agencies that are dragging their feet in the first place. The best solution I can propose to help remedy this situation is to offer government employees incentives for doing a good job in a timely manner. At the end of any project all the private companies and contractors that worked on the project have an opportunity to give those government workers that helped and worked to make the project move along credit and have those people be rewarded by either a bonus, credit towards a future promotion, or even added vacation time. I believe this would create an atmosphere where everyone can work diligently and the outcome will be seen not only by the companies but also the overall society by the added projects around the country.

One big question that has been raised when I have discussed this idea with others as to where the money would come from to pay bonuses or pay for people to have extra vacation time. Many construction project contracts are drafted with a completion date set in stone. For every day that the project does not get completed by that date someone must pay liquidated damages, depending on whose fault the delays are. These damages can range from a $1,000 per day to $25,000 per day depending on the scope of the project. Often times these delays turn into huge arguments than can and do often lead to litigation. In the end the penalties are usually spread among all parties that have to do with the project including the owner which often times is the city, the general contractor and the various subcontractors with no one party actually getting in money for the added time but ultimately spending money to try and pass the blame to the other parties. In addition to this cost it is very expensive to have a construction project not be completed since the building is not creating any revenue itself since it is not being occupied. This again costs all parties involved. The money that would be saved by finishing projects in a timely manner will more than be enough to reward those that helped get it to that point, therefore there would be no need to raise taxes or make a special fund to draw from to give these bonuses.

I am sure that most people will agree that it is much easier to fix a problem before it starts than to try and fix a problem that has been in place for an extended period of time. That is what we are facing right now and unless steps are taken immediately the problem will continue to grow exponentially until any solution is simply not feasible.

Inmates Fighting Fires?

As everyone has seen in the news lately last week throughout Southern California fires were scorching the land. Thousands of firefighters came from all over the country to help battle the fires that extended from San Diego county all the to Ventura county. What many people may not know is that thousands of these firefighters protecting peoples homes are prisoners serving time in jail. An article on this program can be seen here.

California has a program that has been in place since the 1940’s which allows in times of emergencies convicted prisoners the opportunity to help fight fires. The prisoners must fit a certain description in that they must be physically fit, not be violent crime offernders and also have between 4 and 36 months left on their prison terms. What the prisoners get from such efforts is compensation of a whopping $1 per hour worked. In addition and maybe more importantly for every day the prisoners work to help fight fires they get two days knocked off their prison sentence, which can ultimately get prisoners out of an already crowded prison system in California.

This program also has many underlying benefits that may not appear at a quick glance. The prisoners have an opportunity to help in the communities they may have commited crimes in in the past. The prisoners save the state of California over $80 million dollars in taxes annually. Prisoners must go through a rigourous four week crash course in which they learn about firse safety and how to help supress existing fires. Also many prisoners learn practical knowledge that they can apply when they get out of prison.

There are mixed feelings among people whether this program is a good idea or if it helps convicted prisoners get out of their sentences and gives them to much freedom. Some argue that by giving prisoners this opportunity they are not being fully punished for the crimes they commited. The benefits of this program greatly outnumber any of the negative effects this program will have. This program rehabilitates and gives non violent criminals an opportunity to prepare for their life outside of prison and teaches them to become productive individuals in society.

Carry on, Public Intellectuals

Public intellectuals are an interesting breed of people. On one hand they are suppose to be the “experts” of their particular field, but on the other they often know very little outside there area of expertise. Public intellectuals often are critical of people that do not fit the public intellectual description, and in doing so alienate themselves from the people that they are often writing for. This is what creates the big difference in ideas and opinions between the two. It has been talked about that public intellectuals are becoming extinct as a form of expression as John Donatich expresses in a panel on Public Intellectuals seen here. The reasons that this decline is apparently happening is that people have far more access to public intellectual work than in previous times especially through the internet. While many see this as detrimental to the future of public intellectuals, I see this as a very positive fact that public intellectuals can use to have even more influence.

Most people are only going to be interested in reading a public intellectual article or paper if they are interested in the topic that is being discussed. With new forms of sharing of ideas it is easier to find articles that are interesting. It has been written that Americans are hostile towards public intellectuals however I do not believe this to be true. More people than ever are attending college and are being exposed to those that used to and still do make up the public intellectual fraternity. With this new exposure of intellectual ideas and forums to a growing number of people, more people are in turn becoming public intellectual participants. To some that have been writing public intellectuals for a long time this is a threat since it is making what had been an exclusive group much more populated. Public intellectuals however do not have to be on purely academic ideas and theories they can also discuss practical matters that people are faced with everyday.

Public intellectuals in my opinion are far to concerned on who can carry this title and what qualifications one must have. Stephen Mack shares this same idea and explains it in further detail in his article “The Decline of Public Intellectuals?” seen here. Spending too much time ad energy debating who can be considered a public intellectual takes away from the main purpose of public intellectuals, which is to analyze and critique society. Richard Prosner debates in his book Public Intellectuals: A Study of Decline that public intellectuals are becoming far to numbered taking away from the quality of the public intellectual forum. He argues that public intellectuals are not holding to the old expression of “quality over quantity.” What Posner tries to do is attack the most widely viewed public intellectuals to take away from the credibility of them strengthen his argument that there are too many public intellectuals and the quality is poor. This is a completely invalid way to analyze the quality of a public intellectual. This is like saying a movie such as Top Gun which nearly every American as watched at least once is more influential then great movies such as Citizen Kane, which many people may not have seen. Both have an effect on American culture however it is not valid to say all movies are poorly made simply by looking at the movies that are viewed the most and attacking what each of those have done wrong.

Public intellectuals must continue to diversify their subjects and people who write them in order to continue to incorporate new ideas. The internet is making it much easier to share ideas that many public intellectuals would have been hard pressed to share many years ago. This increases the amount of influence that public intellectuals can have in expressing their opinions to others.

Politics and Religion

The relationship between religion and politics is not only one of the most ancient social phenomena, but also one of the most controversial. Politicians throughout history have justified their rule over the masses by aligning their agendas with various religious movements, often to unsettling effectiveness. Logically, it makes sense for a politician or other social leader to sync his or her message with that of a higher power. Think about it: what better way to sway the masses than to threaten the security of their eternal afterlives? When a political candidate or party allies itself symbolically with a person’s most closely held beliefs about morality and spirituality, voting against that candidate or party can feel for some people like a personal betrayal of everything they stand for.
At various points throughout history, this strategy has proven successful. Yet, it should not be thought of as too simplistic to be plausible in today’s world: look at the U.S. presidential election of 2004.
In this most recent election, the conservative Christian base in America wielded extraordinary power over many of its followers and other traditionally right-leaning groups by associating George W. Bush with the traits deemed favorable to those groups. His campaign messages stressed family, loyalty, morality, and played heavily on the theme of good vs. evil. Indeed, this cut-and-dry logic employed by the Bush campaign strategists proved to be one of the deciding factors in his victory over Senator John Kerry. A breakdown of what percentages of religions voted for each of the candidates can be seen in this article by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public life. For many conservative thinkers who prefer quick, decisive action to some sort of organized rational thought, voting for Bush was a “no-brainer.” The way in which he likened the war on terror to some sort of biblical crusade, with defined good guys and bad guys, and a simple plot line ending in an American victory, was very convincing to those who base their lives around similar stories in the Bible. Kerry’s approach to problem-solving, which emphasized collaboration and rational debate, was deemed as ineffective if not cowardly. The truth of the matter is that Bush’s stance embodied more of the classic traits of a religious leader: he was passionate, clear-cut, steadfast, and decisive. His presence told his voters that if a conflict arose, he had an answer waiting for it, whereas Kerry would have to think and consult with others, possibly entertaining many options before making a decision. Not Bush. He knew his responses before the questions were asked. This certainty, although not necessarily wise, was comforting for those who do not want to be troubled with the global concerns of modern life. They just want a leader who will take charge and work for their interests. The problem with this deferment of responsibility is that the nation is not wholly comprised of Bush voters, or Christians, or conservatives.
This brings to light a fundamental problem of the interaction between religion and politics. Both societal constructs are meant to give guidance by creating and enforcing morals and rules to live by. Stephen Mack discusses this topic in his essay “Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual” seen here. Mack argues that “religious experience and democratic politics make overlapping—and often competing—claims to the deepest meanings we attach to our humanity.” He is correct that both religion and politics force us to dive deep into our fundamental moral set to decide what is right and wrong and what rules to live by. The problem with the rules enforced by religion, however, is that those rules were defined in a time when the world was much simpler. True, many religious tenets are just as valuable today as they were 5,000 years ago, but many others are not. It is simply impossible to apply these rules, which are largely based in black and white logic, to our modern day world, which is comprised of shades of gray. Politics however can be applied to issues of today since the political world is able to change at a much faster pace than religious principles. Faith and spirituality are different concepts than religion, yet all too often they are lumped together. Where faith and spirituality leave the door open to interpretation, religion slams it shut by giving people rules to follow without question. With such rules already in place, it is exceedingly easy for governments and political groups to simply apply their labels, and defy anyone to challenge their principles, for fear of challenging God himself.