100,000 Little Pieces

Life is a puzzle.  And so is mine.  On the surface it has been a long time since the trajectory of my life made much sense.  Yet it is has been a daily jigsaw of pieces working with disjointed serendipity toward a meaningful tableau.  I have known a barrage of competing purposes and an endless stream of doubts.  Forced by economic reality to move on from entrepreneurship, I assumed the role of manager.  I excelled.  I resented.  The hop-scotch advance across the roles of retail functionary was fun but ultimately dysfunctional.  I loved the people with which I worked but I loathed the people I served.  Not really, but the line between service and slavish became harder to find. 

City dreams collided with hometown nightmares.  Park concerts meant less when juxtaposed with clinic infusions.  The nuances of the perfect burger gave way to the needs of the perfect niece.   Life has a way of focusing even the most distracted of observers.  And so I am back in Montana.  With the biggest of puzzles. 

I was pulled here by family to be sure, but captured by opportunity as usual.  Opportunity to pursue that which has always aided my success and literally filled my empty spaces:  writing.  Years of employing words to my advantage and plying prose for fun, have given way to a much greater undertaking.  I mean to write a novel. 

I still recoil instinctively from the notion of putting so much on the line.  Of saying plainly, "I will write a book."  But here I am.  I can do no other. 

Which brings me back to my puzzle.  This Christmas finally, gloriously at home after the realities of retail had seen so many holidays put asunder, called for more than Christmas cookies and meat trays.  I decided on a puzzle.  Originally I thought it would be a group activity.  And so it was by the minimum definition.  Yet it was I who rose early and finished late.  I who strained my vision and chewed my cheek.

In the end the puzzle gained greater meaning and was immortalized as a framed work on my wall.  But regardless of how long the image hangs, the implication will live on.  The 750 pieces of the puzzle had consumed me.  It had overpowered my will and demanded my attention.  Now I embark on a bigger challenge.  A 100,000 word puzzle which demands
unbelievable attention and every measure of devotion.  On December 26th there lay bare for everyone to see an unfinished puzzle, perhaps 300 or so pieces to go.  Today there lay before me an unfinished story, perhaps 80,000 or so words to go.  Game on.

No Shrug

525,600 minutes. A year. As I age I find it increasingly difficult to differentiate time. It is harder to compartmentalize and mark discrete periods than I once did. Consider how a school "year" seemed so long when we were young! 9 months.... 9 short months. What folly. What youth.

One year ago I was in the throes of a dream turned nightmare. I stumbled stupidly as the fruition of my hopes turned into the instrument of my despair. Owning one's own business is an ambition which is never for the feint of heart-- or for the short-of-funds. Nearly two years after realizing my greatest ambition I was cowed by a fear I didn't know enough to consider.... failure.

I have learned a lot in the last 525,600 minutes. I've learned to value friends and family. It is cliche, but it is truth. I value sunsets from the 18th floor; and cups of coffee after too many the night before.

I value the last snow on a ski slope so far away and so close to home that you will yourself down the ice. I am amazed at the Starbucks mornings and the Culver's afternoons in Chanhassen. I am surprised that a heavy metal burger became a job that saw me into managment in a few months. I've worked the magnificent mile with people I like and ridden the bus with people I didn't.

I've witnessed tragedy and unspeakable illness and waited with baited breath for news of new life. I've seen the frustrations of disease coincide with the advent of baby. Beautiful baby. I've seen a little girl I love fall and skin her knee and blame me... but forgive I suppose. I've played great golf and seen great golf played in spite of me. I've danced: Danced to the point of sweaty, gasping exhaustion. Real dancing... with people who can. I've witnessed love.

In the past I have noticed the small things that enrich life when life needs a kick. Today I respect life for the big things that kick us when we need enriching. The world is held in the balance, and we all sustain the load. Here's to holding fast... no matter what!

Fuzzy

George W. Bush made the phrase "fuzzy math" a buzzword during a presidential debate, but in the process he could have been highlighting a broader characteristic of partisan politics: the "fuzzy" implementation of "fuzzy" principles. Politicians and political parties have historically been rather more flexible in the implementation of their "core" values while trying to keep power than they are dedicated to them while trying to gain it. Afghanistan has become an illuminating example.

As president Obama has spent months in agonizing soul-searching over his strategy Vi's-a-Vi's the war there, he has pleased almost no one. In a minor scandal his commanding general's opinion took center stage under the Klieg lights of public scrutiny long before Mr. Obama had a chance to formulate his own position. However, the president has not done himself any favors by appearing to dither while soldiers die.

It turns out vision and perception can also be fuzzy. In my younger days there was a popular fad involving brightly colored images of seeming geometric nonsense, which, when stared at in another field of vision, revealed "hidden" three dimensional images out of the apparent chaos. These images are called stereograms, and as I recall were in turns really frustrating and really cool. Perhaps these images have a lesson to teach us about our current president. On their own the pictures were rather decorative and appealing without being objective imagery--not unlike other modern art. Hanging on a wall at the dentist's office they were bright and fun and interesting distractions. However, their true purpose lay hidden beneath. Only those with the will and skill to see the deeper purpose could unlock the real story they had to tell.

This seems a lot like the current president: a lot of appeal on the surface, but a lot of concentrated effort required to figure out what lies beneath. Unfortunately, by casting himself as a stereogram during the campaign he invited each voter to see the appealing, vibrant image they wanted to see. It continues to come as a shock to many voters that once they "stare" at the image long enough, its true character is revealed. In this sense, candidate Obama wasn't a "blank screen" but instead a dizzying, bright, compelling but confused screen. Mesmerized by the busy, colorful tableau, few took the time to carefully stare into a deeper, truer level. Had they done so, he would certainly have had a much tougher race on his hands.

And here's where the rub of the whole fuzzy affair emerges: the president appears likely to again escalate the war in Afghanistan. Just as the stereogram is a useful illustration of the president's path to office, Afghanistan is just one useful illustration of the consequences of that path: in this case, disillusioned Democrats and pleasantly surprised Republicans. He is supported by a majority of the public, but NOT by his liberal base. Unlike the other areas of public policy where principles blur, Democrats are proving frustratingly anti-war even in power, while Republicans are proving surprisingly focused on victory even under an opposition president. Had liberals listened during the campaign they would have heard a candidate talking about the importance of Afghanistan--but they didn't see that beneath the colorful surface they adored. That they are now shocked and dismayed by his escalation of the war is no more surprising than the shock of all those voters who thought Mr. Obama was a centrist, pragmatic, non-partisan. Perhaps we'll all learn to stare deeper. Or it could be that my logic is just a little fuzzy.

NOTE: It is possible to see the hidden image above (Hint: it is apropos to the current discussion)

En Garde!

Compromise is a practice in desperate search of a few good practitioners. One quick definition of a compromise is “a settlement in which each side give up some demands or makes concessions.” Today’s political climate is almost completely lacking in an appreciation of this art; yet no less than the founding of the republic depended on deep, painful, morally questionable compromise. If the country is to avoid becoming ungovernable, these essential lessons of history must be relearned.

The political climate of the country over the past couple of years, if not the past couple of decades, is one in which compromise is undermined on opposing fronts in divergent ways. On one side Barack Obama—the most prominent political phenomenon of the times—represents a political paradigm that tends to simply take the republican virtue of compromise and sweetly and gently rock it to sleep. His is a powerful rhetoric of transcendence. Mr. Obama campaigned to be president from the curious premise of not being a politician. He is the post-partisan figure who is by relentless logic, patient education, and lofty persuasion going to heal the wounds of a nation straining at its seams. This concept of the noble savior-king descended from a more virtuous plane of human wisdom probably has ancient roots in human imagining. It is also a philosophy completely at odds with the tradition of democratic compromise.

By attempting to transcend politics a leader such as Mr. Obama willfully infers that his wisdom and talents supersede the usual—and therefore inferior—mechanisms of policy-making and general governance. Whether this worldview is born of hubris or ideology is irrelevant insofar as it is at once tempting and destructive. Tempting because it promises to banish those messier bits of democracy the public finds so distasteful: argument, gridlock, and that great bogeyman—division. Unity is idealized at the expensive of substance. The problem of human organization is not the imperfection of humanity, but the sloppiness of its governing systems. Once unity is realized, the logic proceeds, a great revelation of solutions to problems and resolution of conflicts will be manifest. This is a seductive notion, and it bears mentioning that George W. Bush also embraced the Unity paradigm early in his campaign and presidency.

Nevertheless, this is a delusional view with destructive consequences: substituting intentions for results at best, and relying upon a carefully crafted cult of personality at worst. The true brilliance of this approach to politics is that it seems to share the spirit of can-do problem solving and togetherness which compromise is thought to entail. It is a candy-coated, uplifting message that serves as a salve on the voters’ collective sore spots. However, there is a key point of divergence between Unity and compromise when it comes to the terms under which disparate factions are brought together. In the former the masses are collected in a grand consensus of wishful thinking. In the latter they are brought together by necessity in a difficult and messy give and take designed to preserve a greater good at the expense of many smaller ones. By obscuring the need for this practice, Unity undermines exactly the sorts of systems intended to keep the country united and free from tyrannies of all variety. When the public is deluded into thinking it can be brought together by hope, it is inevitable that it will eventually be brought together only by coercion.

The phenomenon opposite the Unity paradigm is Purity. This is the path of perceived virtue being doggedly pursued by many opinion leaders within the conservative movement—and by extension the Republican Party. Purity is idealized at the expense of effectiveness. This political paradigm holds that anything short of doctrinal wholeness is a sign of weakness and gradual surrender to an ideological foe. Under such an approach to politics discipline is the highest virtue. Allegiance is repeatedly tested and those of potentially flexible minds are systematically drubbed out of the organization. Unlike the Unity approach, Purity does not seek power via mass acclamation. It is rather a Quixotic attempt to recruit new followers based on providing a wholesome, coherent worldview. It suggests that being right is more important than being popular in the hopes that the former will eventually yield the latter.

The practical impact of Purity politics is illustrated by the grassroots effort to impose conservative orthodoxy in Republican primaries. The New York 23rd Congressional district aside, there are many other Republicans in prominent senate races—Florida, Illinois and Delaware come to mind—where well known, moderates face primary challenges on the grounds that the front-runner is insufficiently devoted to the ideological cause—at a time when the party is in a desperate minority position in the Congress! If successful, the result of this Purity will be even less influence. While the approach of Purity is a logical reaction to the approach of Unity, it is also antithetical to the spirit of compromise. Better to get nothing done than show weakness through an inch of retreat.

A more in depth analysis of modern political history might reveal a growing pattern of these two paradigms alternating between parties and gradually gaining permanence in the country’s governance; however that is beyond the present scope. The critical point is that two opposing political philosophies—one vowing to transcend compromise and the other declaring it a mortal enemy—are currently entrenched in such a way as to mutually assure the exclusion of traditional political bartering.

This is a problem verging on a crisis. Should the situation persist the country will become increasingly ungovernable. In 2009 President Obama assumed office on the wave of the most decisive election in a generation, with large majorities in both houses of Congress, and with the most solicitous of press corps. Yet in spite of this seeming political trifecta he has demonstrated a surprising inability to achieve even portions of his agenda. Whether one agrees with his priorities and policies or not, one must acknowledge his apparent legislative impotence is alarming: if he can’t govern under these circumstances, who might do better, and how?

In contrast to these two opposing paradigms, the historic legacy is that of a long, noble attempt to find compromise—even in the face of morally grave and seemingly intractable issues like slavery. The Great Compromise was the first in a series of painful compromises which served to avert constitutional crises and sustain the union through its first 85 years. Though the so called Great Compromise involved the seemingly mundane mechanics of governing, its ability to bridge the difference between autonomous and independent minded large and small states was the critical step in making the American Constitution possible. If pressed residents of California may to this day concede their frustration in sharing equal Senate representation with their compatriots in Rhode Island, but the point is that this system enabled them to be compatriots in the first place. After this grand bargain there were several “named” compromises that largely kept the union together in the decades between the Revolution and the Civil War. The notorious 3/5 compromise settled differences between slave and free states over Congressional representation. The Missouri Compromise and the Compromise of 1850 each served to expand and preserve the union by diffusing the omnipresent issue of slavery. In each of these cases either side could have been justifiably angered by the loss to its respective cause. Yet each side recognized the grave consequences of no deal. Eventually slavery proved too big a moral blight to be settled through political compromise, but the point is that compromise was effective in providing the common ground upon which a young nation was formed and sustained during its critical stage of development. Note that this was not universal ground or unanimous ground, but awkwardly shared ground.

If compromise is the ultimately necessary model for a vast, diverse and continental nation, where are today’s grand bargains? Unfortunately as the Unity and Purity politics have gained supremacy, so has the Supreme Court. As the country has forgone political compromise, it is only too happy to let the Supreme Court divide the proverbial baby rather than work its differences out legislatively. Perhaps the road back begins with a bold push for a major compromise. Toward that end a constitutional amendment would carry several advantages. First, an amendment is fairly novel insofar as there hasn’t been an amendment seriously debated since the ERA failed to achieve adoption thirty years ago. Resurrecting constitutionalism would in itself require the public to think differently about the politics of the age. Second, it represents a permanency that legislation lacks. Minds would tend to focus and arguments sharpen around a functionally permanent change to the country’s founding document. This should serve to add seriousness to a political discourse too often characterized by the trivial and absurd. Thirdly, it allows multiple large issues to be resolved simultaneously, thereby avoiding a chicken and egg style standoff over which side moves first. In order to be effective the amendment would need to settle issues of significant concern to large segments of the population in a palatable if painful manner.

Consider the following:

Autonomy over one’s body and mind being the highest objective of Liberty, neither the Congress nor the individual States shall make any law contrary to the following:

1) A woman who has attained the age of majority shall not be unreasonably restricted access to medical procedures intended to terminate an unviable fetus.

2) No government jurisdiction shall by penalty of law, taxation, incentive, or other means control or influence the physical or mental health of any Person whether it pertain to lifestyle, nutrition, medical procedure or any other factor except as pertains to proximate and discreet public health threats.

3) The genetic information of a human person shall not be duplicated in whole or in part in any manner such as to produce a clone or approximate clone of any human person for any purpose. No part of section two of this amendment shall be construed to contradict this section three.

The foregoing is a hastily composed, flawed prototype of what could be a compelling compromise amendment. First, it would effectively end the abortion debate by acknowledging—but not altering—the status quo. While this would not change the facts as they exist, it would scuttle conservative dreams of overturning Roe v. Wade, while enshrining a major liberal talisman into settled constitutional fact. The important side effect of essentially removing a perennially divisive political wedge issue from the debate should have appeal to exasperated voters on all sides of the issue. Second, it would end conservative and libertarian fears about the most sinister potential impacts of government involvement in healthcare: that government obtains carte blanche authority to make a range of health related decisions in the name of a compelling government interest in controlling costs. The so called “death panel” argument could easily be ended. Finally, the potential future controversy over human cloning could be settled in a decisive manner that should reassure conservatives and clarify that autonomy over one’s body cannot be used as justification for cloning in any way, shape, or form.

There are surely a number of equally viable issues around which one might build a compromise amendment intended to yield benefits beyond the specific policy matters settled. These benefits should include refocusing on the proper constitutional mechanisms of government, rediscovering the vast political mobilization and conversation required to approve an amendment, and depriving the parties of their stranglehold on political discourse. This project could be adopted by an independent movement, organization, or third party with the goal of removing some divisiveness from politics, advancing sound public policy, and reclaiming republican democracy from the dangerous idols of Unity and Purity. Only when the country is willing to sacrifice meaningful principles in service to the greater project of nationhood will it begin to repair its damaged governance, social fabric, and economy. More than some nebulous concept of hope, the change needed is in the direction of ugly, gritty, distasteful compromise.

Great Pains

The Associated Press reports today on the strapping good health of what the article calls "A slice of the central US." With characteristic factual ambiguity the article seeks to assure those poor huddled masses around the country, that their lucky country cousins are basking in the fine fortune of financial fitness.

According to the AP, a swath of contiguous counties extending from Montana and North Dakota, through Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, and Oklahoma, before terminating in northern Texas comprise an economic "safe zone." A zone where unemployment is low, foreclosures are rare, and household incomes are up.

What utter nonsense. I'm sure the proud residents of this region are meant to feel honored that some AP reporters deigned to remember that these states exist at all. Perhaps someone was staring out of an airplane on a particularly clear day only to realize that there is more than clouds between LA and NYC. In any event, the article couldn't be a better example of what happens when journalists fail to report on all the facts.

Perhaps some background may have helped the story. Perhaps the gumshoes on this beat could have reminded their readers that this "slice of the central US"--which I thought we still called the Great Plains--has been undergoing systematic decline for the better part of 100 years. A region that supplied a young nation and much of the world with food has seen its population collapse as less and less labor is required to grow more and more food. It has seen national farm and environmental policies dating back to the New Deal create an ever increasing bureaucratic nettle bed within which to work. It has seen the farm economy increasingly jerked around like a yo-yo on the end of Washington's string.

For decades the region has seen some of its brightest citizens flee for the cities and the coasts, where they fueled commerce and innovation through their tireless work ethic and home grown integrity.

Those that remained were thanked with schools that had to consolidate or close. Clinics without doctors, pulpits without pastors, and storefronts without businesses. They were privileged to drive hours for the conveniences and supplies the rest of us take for granted. They were forced to brush off their status as a national punch-line, and endure the indignity of being considered fly-over country. Yet they worked hard. Kept their focus on their businesses and farms and families. Mostly they just wanted to be left alone, but occasionally they could use a little help.

They didn't build McMansions, they refurbished "the old Such-and-Such place." They didn't spend their weekends accumulating frivolous gadgets at the malls that no one built in the towns no one has heard of. They didn't hop from job to job seeking ever better wages only to get caught up in their own rat race. In short, they largely lived within their means. They don't have a housing crisis, because they didn't build many houses. They don't have a commercial real estate bubble, because they don't have any new commercial palaces.

In return they once again witness a government trying to destroy one of their main industries through misguided energy restrictions. They get the privilege of paying exorbitant gasoline prices, though they cannot avoid the long miles and large vehicles required for life on the prairie. They have the opportunity to bear the cost of health reform through reductions in Medicare.

After all the contributions the Plains have made to the country: food, labor, soldiers and energy, and all the hardships they steadfastly endure without complaint, I think the AP should have spared them the added insult of suggesting that they are better off than the rest of the country. I guess the good thing about being at the bottom of a hole, is that it is hard to keep falling.

Fat Guys in Blue Uniforms

Rarely do I approach a posting with a flippant comment. This will deviate slightly.

The Supreme Court of the United States is of little democratic importance. The Supreme Court of the United States is critical to the republic. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a child: it should speak only when spoken to. The Supreme Court of the United States is like a king: when it speaks every tongue confess and every knee bow.

I have been struck by the confirmation hearings of Judge Sonia Sotomayor in a way that I had not been struck before. Roberts and Alito passed my attention with scant notice. The only SCOTUS Justice I have seen in real life is Ruth Bader Ginsberg-- and after seeing her I would object to the characterization of "real life."

The impression I am left with is that the SCOTUS is little more than a vestige of an uncomfortable truth: democracy is impossible and authority, in the end, must be absolute. It was too convenient and insufficiently salutary to vest in monarchs the absolute authority of the Divine. Nevertheless, our founders recognized the equal folly in vesting absolute authority in the People. Democracy, capital D, writ large with universal suffrage is not-- in the vernacular-- "doable." There will always be intractable questions, irreconcilable differences, principled debates, and moral arguments that a simple vote could never satisfactorily resolve. Democracy for all its lauded glory is really rather lousy when it comes to governing.

Our founders, conscious of this fact, invented from whole cloth peculiar, anachronistic notions such as the Electoral College and separations of power to blunt the unsavory implications of majority rule. These anachronistic peculiarities are what makes us a constitutional republic and NOT a democracy. Only a finely tuned hybrid with ample trip wires may be counted upon to ensure "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."

I am told that baseball is the national pastime, the game of youth, and as American as apple pie. Fine. I am culturally aware enough to know that Jackie Robinson broke the color barrier. That the Red Socks ought to have kept Babe Ruth. That Joe DiMaggio was a big deal. That Barry Bond's head was too big a deal, and that A-Rod simply makes too much. All of this from a profoundly disinterested vantage. What I cannot tell you is the name of a single MLB umpire. Baseball, like any competition is dependent on the skills and actions of its stars and supporting cast. T-shirts, hot dogs, and beer are sold in support of great pitchers, sluggers, and amazing fielders (I even know that Denver's short stop Troy Tulowitzki has a rare unassisted triple play). The obvious but unsung reality of this game is that without the overweight guys in blue uniform, the games would not work, the competition would not function.

In the NFL much debate has taken place over the role of instant replay. Purists believe that the game should play out under human eyes, and that the human failings that result will largely cancel each other out. Others argue that modern technology empowers officials to know in near-real time exactly what actually happened. Perhaps no sport has more officiating staff than football. What with the referee, the umpire, the line judges, etc. it is as if football has seed all other sports and raised them a striped shirt! The debate over instant replay reveals an uncomfortable truth: there is no way for two teams to meet in feats of strategy and strength and struggle to a just conclusion. Only by the inclusion of aging, striped, wise-men of the game, operating under controversial and disputable rules may the contest bear any real legitimacy.

Imagine if Christianity had a Supreme Court. Rather than countless sects battling amongst themselves for souls, a single body would interpret the Bible. They would of course all profess to approach the Bible with deference to its teachings. They would protest that no judge can "make scripture." They would insist that they were faithful to the "spirit of the authors intent." Their rulings would be extremely controversial. Would never be wholeheartedly accepted by all Christians, and would be subject to constant efforts at repeal. Yet, were there to be such a court, all Christians would more or less agree to live under their rulings. Christendom would be much less democratic and diverse, but surely much more uniform and explainable. Religion is not governance, and so there is no such body. It helps to understand the difficulty.

Human interactions, it seems, are complex and frustratingly insensitive to the vagaries of talent and momentum and force. This is why at the end of the day Lord Democracy requires King Justice. This is why 100,000,000 plus votes can be cast in a presidential election, while that election is settled by a single justice. The ugly truth is that human governance cannot avoid authoritarianism. We can reserve it for the rarest of cases, dilute it with as many checks and balances as possible, and wrap it in liberty infused folk lore, but the truth is the same: no society can govern itself without some extremely limited, absolutely powerful force bearing the final verdict.

There is always an exception, a loop-hole, and backstop. There is always someone who gets to circumvent public whims and simply settle matters. No matter our delusions, we need absolute, undemocratic rule to make this great nation go.

If we are to have a demi-dictator. A soft sovereign. The best we can hope to do is to keep a mix of individuals who are wise, collegial, and principled. They won't agree with each other, but they will rule from on high when the masses can't. They will be the fat guys in blue uniforms--er, black robes-- to which (mostly) no one pays any attention.

R.E.M. Was Right

Driving around for work this past Wednesday I was subjected to repeated top-of-the-hour radio news broadcasts. Each time some ABC news reporter too ugly to make it on television would mention hearings underway on Capitol Hill. Not remarkable as it goes. However, the hearings weren't about the ballooning deficit, health care, or financial regulation. The hearings were being held on the subject of school bullying.

Bullying it seems, is something of a problem in this country. Apparently--and I had to do some follow-up research on this-- middle and high school students tend to be intolerant and often verbally or even physically abusive to other students. I am cognizant of the shock this may provide the reader, but I assure you, if you read the testimony you will see there is evidence. Children have been called names. They have had embarrassing things written on their lockers. They have had their books dumped en route to study hall. This crisis is reaching a boiling point.

It is clearly right and good that Congress should act to halt this abusive environment in our nation's schools. Clearly we need a law. We need a regulation. We probably need federal funding. An anti-bullying program for every classroom. Teacher retraining. Parental accountability. We need zero tolerance policies and detention and a cop in every janitor closet. Congress must not rest until every child is safe and secure and no one hates and bad words are never spoken. Until anger is vanquished and conflict put asunder and lions lay down with lambs.

Or maybe what we need to do is get a grip. Kids are brutal, mean, and insensitive. They are insecure and prone to establishing identity and power in relation to whom they can put down and lord over. Middle school is a gauntlet of emotional, psychological, and physical turmoil from internal as well as external sources. And it should stay that way.

We have reached a point in this country where tolerance is a near-universal cultural norm. The stilted, exaggerated political correctness of the past couple decades has gradually given way to a genuine feeling of deference toward other people, cultures, habits, and beliefs. The country is much more likely to live and let live that it was a generation ago.

At the same time society has been encouraging children toward individualism and self-esteem in historically unprecedented ways. Every child is encouraged to believe that they are--yes-- good enough, smart enough, and gosh darn it people like them. Every action undertaken by every little crumb cruncher is praised, documented, filmed, and shared with relatives at the holidays. Every scribble becomes a prized work of art. Every voice angelic, every mismatched outfit couture.

The combination of these phenomena yields a twisted cocktail. It leads some to believe that anyone can do anything, wear anything, say anything at anytime anywhere and the world around them must tolerate it. This is nonsense. Our society must be tolerant and increasingly accepting of the wonderful differences found in the great human family. However, we must still live with each other. A vast, diverse, wildly divergent population must somehow share a country, a neighborhood, and a school. We are still social creatures, and we still must learn to function in some normative cultural model.

The wages of tolerance and acceptance must be deference and respect.

Anyone who seeks society's acceptance should be willing and able to show some deference for the majority's mores. Unfortunately, lessons about social mores often come in uncomfortable packages. Which brings us back to our bullying problem. Children must learn to function in social groups and they must learn cultural norms. Those lessons come at a point of maturation corresponding to middle and high school. These are the years where each person sorts out both their personal identity and how that identity fits into the larger social fabric. As we hammer out our personalities the often brutal, crass interactions with fellow travelers serve as the fire and water by which we are tempered. Bullying is part of the anvil upon which we form our adult selves.

Middle and high school is a time for experimentation, eccentricity, and individuation. Everyone is "bullied" in some way: aspiring athletes learn the limitation of their talents, others learn the limitation of their intelligence, or are beaten down by the vagaries of physical attractiveness. Others are teased for their style of dress, their mannerisms, their unusual hobbies or interests. Everyone runs into something that rends their perfect self-image. In short, they learn the hard way that the scribble was just a scribble.

Some people will change a little, some will conform altogether, and some will stiffen their resistance as they grow comfortable in the role of outcast. The key is to learn how to strike a balance between accepting other's differences and comporting oneself to different social contexts. In the end nearly all will learn this critical survival skill needed to navigate through life. Shielding kids from the tortures of maturing into socially functional adults is not desirable or even achievable. Which is probably why Congress is so comfortable dealing with it.


(The most poignant arguments, the tearful testimony always concerns young people who have died, often through suicide, and sometimes through murder. Of course these are tragic outcomes that cannot be dismissed. Suicide is always an unfathomable tragedy--especially when it involves the very young. Murder is a crime. Assault is a crime. Criminal activity can never be tolerated, and suicide must always be guarded against. However, I think it is simply going too far to suggest that these rare but tragic outcomes are the result of school yard teasing, name calling, shoving, and other standard "bullying." These outcomes are no more explainable than any other senseless act of violence. I do not mean to conflate the two or to excuse violence.)