ON THE AVENUES: Shelter from the Strom.

ON THE AVENUES: Shelter from the Strom.

A weekly web column by Roger A. Baylor.

I’ll begin this week’s column with a robust act of good will by saving the little people of New Albany the trouble of griping, grudging trips to their attics to locate moldering thesauruses last consulted during the Ford Administration.

In England (the country, not the ex-mayor), “crackpot” arose several hundred years ago as two separate words, first hyphenated as cracked-pot, and then later joined together as one: Crackpot.

Then as now, something broken or faulty was cracked, and as far back as the Middle Ages, one’s head or skull might be called a pot. Literally, a cracked-pot was a “faulty head,” similar to one of my personal favorite derogations, numbskull, which I’ll always associate with the Three Stooges even if its prevalent usage goes much further back in history than the advent of Larry, Moe and Curly on celluloid.

Which is to say, I ran into one the other day – not a Stooge, but a crackpot.

---

In retrospect, there were warning signs on the road ahead even though the conversation began sensibly enough with a generally benign chat about various aspects of American history. I should have known better, seeing as my point of view tends to differ from the 50-year-old white male demographic, and yet fleeing was not an option. I’d only just bought a beer and lit a cigar, and damn it, it was a clean and well lighted place.

Instead, I shifted into autopilot and imagined myself reading old telephone books and electronics manuals. It’s a sanity defense mechanism of long standing, reflecting too many years of listening to the beer-fueled babblings of barflies.

Soon we arrived at a crossroads of sorts. He’d already made a fleeting reference to the “mistake” of American women being granted the vote. I ignored it, but it was only a matter of time; his tone of voice subtly was changing, and a sense of agitation gradually was becoming palpable. Obviously, we weren’t quite finished with the female franchise, and when it finally arrived, requisitely red-faced, his argument proceeded roughly like this.

Women are innately different from men, which is to say that women are innately superior to men, this being because as opposed to men, women are both “compassionate” and “nurturing.” Precisely owing to the superior nature of women as compassionate and nurturing, they should not be allowed to vote, because voting is about government, and not only should government never should be about compassion or nurture, but it is a misreading of the Constitution to suggest otherwise.

I waited in vain for the punch line, and heard only crickets chirping. Then with resignation, it came to me. The guy was dead serious.

Frankly, this revelation shouldn’t have stunned me. I had expected some manner of illogical utterance, but the fellow fairly pole-vaulted over the bare minimum comprehensibility. In my everyday world, such an argument would have been openly, blatantly satirical – a gag, a joke, a late night talk show skit making the rounds on YouTube, or an anonymous posting at Kitchen Fable.

In fact, if his rant had been uttered in the context of the Seventies-era sitcom “Barney Miller,” Det. Harris surely would have made the usual deadpan remark to the Captain:

“Looks like we have a new customer for the enchanted kingdom.”

The guy was absolutely sincere. I thought to myself, hmm, maybe I need to get out more often.

Or: Never go out, ever again.

---

In truncated form, the preceding anecdote duly was posted on Twitter, and I smugly kicked back my heels to receive the inevitable plaudits from all my like-minded friends who hang out there, except that Bluegill promptly answered by going me one better. Seems he’d been having chats, too.

I was told male dominated gun ownership was the only fair thing do given that women have so much power to murder via abortion.

Now I’d been thoroughly pole-vaulted, both deflated and forced to concede that yes, in the comparative struggle to quantify cluelessness, the derision implicit in the assertion reported by Bluegill rendered it far more disturbing. At least my guy had something good to say about women in the general sense.

Abruptly, I realized that the last time I’d heard such an observation equating women with murder, it had emanated from a woman, one who probably supports her own right to vote.

But perhaps a woman in opposition to abortion would agree with a male who favors stripping women of the vote, seeing as any “real” woman imbued with compassion and nurturing wouldn’t ever choose abortion, anyway, although wouldn’t this stance imply that such anti-feminine traits like “murdering” children actually make her more masculine, thereby entitling her to both guns AND the vote?

If so, would her possession of both guns and ballots prevent a preacher somewhere (Christianity only, please – we’re ‘mericans, not rag-heads) from deciding under which circumstances she might have sexual relations and bear children?

Once again, surveying the world of crackpots, just staying home really began sounding like the best idea of all.

---

Most expository writing instructors would suggest that I come to a conclusion at this juncture. Insofar as any closing point can be reached, mine comes in the form of a memo to my fellow white heterosexual male Americans.

“I know you’re feeling all forgotten, marginalized, excluded, neutered, angry and terrified of a changing world, but seriously, you really need to stop embarrassing me, okay? You’re going to have embolisms and coronaries if you don’t chill out. Worse, you’ll fall off the planet into space like the dinosaurs did. Watch some golf, listen to your old rock & roll records, and have a drink – even ice cold swill’s okay if it calms you the $%@# down.”

Thanks, fellows. I won’t keep you any longer. After all, the ferry to Fantasy Island departs very, very soon.

Amid universal nods of resignation, the 'Bune editorial board botches parks secession opinion.

Apart from Keith Olbermann and Charles P. Pierce, it's generally a bad idea to entrust political commentary to career sportwriters. That said, let's lower ourselves into the abyss of the newspaper editorial board's opinion on the evolving NA-FC parks split. Their text appears in normal formatting, and my replies as quotes.

---

OUR OPINION: Plenty of problems to share for parks split

New Albany Mayor Jeff Gahan’s justification for wanting to form a separate New Albany parks system is legitimate.

Over an eight year period, Floyd County shortchanged the New Albany-Floyd County Parks Department by about $4 million. This summer, the Floyd County Commissioners declined to vote on forming a cumulative capital fund to aid in expenses with the park, though city taxpayers have been footing the additional levy for years.

The reasons for not living up to their end of the bargain have changed numerous times for Floyd County officials. We’ve been told the money had to be used for murder trials, the county didn’t realize the taxes weren’t going to the parks department and even that the state cut the levy rate.

Those aren’t exactly the practices of an entity most would consider partnering with for any matter that has financial implications.

No, they’re not, are they? The ‘Bune’s editorial board clearly understands the magnitude of the county’s serial “deadbeat dad” approach to governance. But you just know it can't last …

However, the parks situation is much larger than a simple yes or no vote. Jobs, property and future collaboration with the county must be considered by the city before moving ahead with the divide of the parks system. The New Albany council voted 6-3 to do just that Thursday night, but finalizing the move will require one more vote.

Ah, I see. It is “much larger.” What does this mean, and why is it true? Yes, jobs, properties and “future collaborations” (Really? You wanna go out with that guy again after he dined and dashed before the check came due and made you go Dutch Treat?) are considerations, to be sure; as I noted last week, these also were presumed factors in seeking to avid the split of an entire Central European country, and Czechs and Slovaks somehow managed to work them out.

Frankly, Gahan hasn’t been forthcoming with the NA-FC Parks Board about his intentions, at least not in an official capacity. Gahan was one of the few city or county officials who skipped at least one of the joint meetings hosted by the parks board to try to mediate past woes between the entities. Also, no one from the Gahan administration addressed the parks board about the split prior to the measures being placed on the New Albany City Council’s agenda Thursday.

On one hand, county officials never came before the city to announce they wouldn’t be adequately funding the parks department. But the county’s mistake should be a lesson, not a reason to keep the parks board in the dark about what may transpire.

Two things here. First, what is it about the parks in general, and the parks board in particular, that cloaks them in a perpetual above-the-fray holiness, more so than other local administrative entities? Personally I believe parks are very important, but I can see numerous potential models of governance. Since when did this one become sacrosanct, unimpeachable and shielded from scrutiny? In addition, why does Mayor Gahan have a greater responsibility to be loquacious than county government? Gahan gets scalded for non-transparence, but the county’s years of similar mute funding behavior is merely a lesson. What of the parks board’s own non-transparence in conducting its affairs, as when it sought to engineer a state legislature-mandated tax hoarding without notifying the county or the city? Why wasn't that considered non-transparent?

The parks board oversees several employees, some of whom have served this community for 40 years. Gahan owed an explanation to those volunteer board members — whether they agreed with his choice or not — so they could, in turn, inform parks employees.

Subsequent news items suggest he has done so.

If he believes in the split, he should stand up for it and look parks board members in the eye. Not to mention it’s October, and if there’s going to be a city parks system in place by Jan. 1, there’s a tremendous amount of preparation and planning that will be needed.

Again, why is it that Gahan alone bears the solemn quasi-Old Testament obligation to look parks board members "in the eye"? Were these board members appointed by “god” herself? Why this disproportionate requirement of Gahan, while serial fiscal negligence on the part of county government gets little more than an affectionate butt slap -- hey, cool, you'll do better next eight year stretch, right?

What is the rush? Why not release a plan, get people on board and proceed in 2014. There seem to be too many questions that need answers before the split occurs.

Now I’m confused. The parks split is acceptable, and there are compelling reasons for it? If so, given that the editorial board can see that county government is culpable even if the board shrinks from learning its own lessons from the experience, why tolerate another year of county under-funding guesswork? Why not act swiftly? 

Here are some other questions to consider:

• What would such a divide really mean for the residents of New Albany? Sam Peden Community Park is the city’s largest and most frequented outdoor recreational facility. But the land is owned by the county, so if the split ultimately happens, it will solely be in charge of the park’s upkeep.

After what has taken place in the past, how much do you trust the county to maintain the city’s most sizable park? Floyd County Commissioners President Steve Bush said recently he would not be in favor of selling any of the park land for commercial use, but he’s only one vote.

What if the county decides one day to develop Community Park? New Albany would have very few options to stop the greenspace from being covered with asphalt and residential or commercial buildings if that were to transpire.

New Albanians are grateful the newspaper's editorial board seems to grasp that when it comes to the future of Community Park, county government can be trusted only as far as I can throw a keg filled with 12% beer. Naturally, the board cites this legitimate mistrust of county government’s ultimate aims as evidence that city residents should live in fear of the bully. Uh, right.

• Also, in a time where taxpayers are calling for condensed government, how will Floyd County and New Albany be affected when footing two parks departments?

New Albany taxpayers have already shouldered the biggest part of the parks funding load, but that won’t change when the split happens. Unless New Albany plans to secede from Floyd County, city taxpayers will still be paying for the bulk of parks operations. New Albany residents will be paying for city parks on their own, as well as taxes that will likely help foot a new and separate county recreation system.

The showdown over this issue has spilled over into other arenas as well. The city and county are now in the midst of a legal battle over planning control of the fringe area, and New Albany declined to merge its 911 dispatch operation with Floyd County. The county is the second-smallest county in the state in terms of land area, so shouldn’t we be coming together to cut out duplicated services and costs?

The Alabama-based N and T parent company eliminated duplication in 2011, didn't it, and look where THAT got us. But I digress. These bellicose taxpayers presumably are the very same ones who’d be among the first to demand that all parties involved pay their fair share into the parks just like the taxpayers themselves have been doing all along. Would taxpayers genuinely interested in fairness be willing to forgive and forget the county’s serial underpayment of parks monies? Or do we merely fluff taxpayers in a sort of ritualistic abnegation without exploring the nuances of what they're demanding this week? Sadly, nowadays, yes, but it’s also worth noting that if one is to follow this incredibly tired “duplicated services and costs” to its logical conclusion, we’d have only one government nationwide, obtaining the very best rates for bulk purchasing and distribution … wait, sorry; that’s the socialist bogeyman, isn’t it?

At some point, the city and the county are going to have to cooperate for the good of the residents.

When all is considered, New Albany may have a better chance of garnering a new outdoor pool and a Little League facility on its own. But such a big move as splitting a parks department shouldn’t be rushed into a special meeting with little notice.

Parks are one of the assets companies review before deciding to locate to a community. Just thinking about a warm sunny day in a park with family and friends stirs positive emotions in our minds and souls.

But this whole issue has been anything but warm and fuzzy. It shows incompetence by the county and lack of respect by the Gahan administration for the employees and board members who have served the parks system.

So, why isn't the editorial board asking the single most obvious question posed by this discussion: How do we compel county government to cooperate? To make this point again: If the newspaper is interested in clarity, mustn’t it explain why a simple, subjective and highly debatable “lack of respect” from Jeff Gahan is to be considered commensurate with a county government so objectively “incompetent” as to fail to honor its side of a money deal not merely for the brief tenure of Gahan’s term, but for a period of years? How are these failures equal, editorial board? And what on earth do warm fuzzies have to do with any of it?

— The News and Tribune editorial board is comprised of Publisher Bill Hanson, Editor Shea Van Hoy and Assistant Editors Chris Morris and Amy Huffman-Branham.

Perhaps it is, but since the managing editor freely acknowledges that 3/4 of this quartet rarely venture out of HQ in Jeffersonville, I believe we know who wrote it, don't we? And that explains a lot, doesn't it?

Right, Nancy: None of us wish to be hurt by bad drivers, so shall we do away with laws regulating driving?

That's funny. As a commuting cyclist, I find that cars with drivers who flagrantly disobey traffic laws are a hazard to me. Digging deeper, this letter encapsulates the classic passive-aggressive New Albanian attitude toward ordinance enforcement, doesn't it?

LETTER: Bike lanes are for bikes

In regard to your article involving Spring Street lane markings, twice I have had a near collision there with cars using the bike lanes to get around cars driving in the car lanes. [The lanes] are a hazard to cars that drive there daily.

I don’t see many bike riders using the lanes. I don’t want to be killed in this situation. I hope this bike lane is done away with.

— Nancy Rein, New Albany

G.O.P. chairman goes nutzoid over columnist's consideration of Abraham Lincoln.

It’s simply unavoidable: You’ll have to do some reading for this to make sense.

First: HARBESON: Looking at Lincoln’s legacy ... "I’m used to seeing lots of references about Abraham Lincoln in February, but the volume has certainly been pumped up this year since we are celebrating his 200th birthday ... "

Second: MATTHEWS: Read your history, Ms. Harbeson ... "How utterly disgusting that we should even dignify so selfish an opinion as Debbie Harbeson’s piece concerning Lincoln’s legacy."

Before wading in, know that I’m casual acquaintances with both columnists.

Debbie’s column was published first. In it, she approaches the legacy of Abraham Lincoln by asking a few general questions about individual freedom vs. the collective’s coercive impulses. Of course, we know that her columns usually offer considerations from a libertarian perspective. Furthermore, apart from labels, we should be able to see that examinations of this sort are the ideal mechanism for debating prevailing orthodoxy – and that’s never a bad thing.

When it comes to the life and legacy of Lincoln, my readings have been sporadic, but I recognize that the non-critical acceptance of mythology is hardly the best place to embark upon a journey of balanced understanding, whether it pertains to the lessons of Father Abraham or those of any other historical figure.

In fact, upon rereading Debbie’s piece, I’m still struck by its mildness. She isn’t attempting a comprehensive study, just extracting a few talking points by tweaking the popular perception of Lincoln as a (formerly) living God. Somewhere Howard Zinn is saying, “yes, but what about (this and that and this) … ?”

By contrast, Dave’s wild-eyed response is profoundly disproportionate, and amid his arm-waving and histrionics, he seems to have completey failed to see the real point of Debbie’s ruminations. In effect, the GOP chairman erects a straw man roughly the size of a GI Joe doll, fires a howitzer of ad hominem assumptions at it from point-blank range … and not unexpectedly, misses the target entirely.

Worst of all, Dave expends precious little effort in answering Debbie’s questions about Lincoln, beyond implying that whatever civil liberties Honest Abe trampled by suspending habeas corpus proved to be a cost worth incurring to prevent Southerners from exercising their preference to own slaves.

This is muddled, to say the least. Historians have consistently pointed to Lincoln’s constantly evolving positions on slavery. Do we teach school children that until relatively late in the Civil War, Lincoln still favored sending all of “them” back to Africa? No, we don’t, but it’s factual, isn’t it?

As for the notion of states’ rights, I’m as northern as they come in temperament, but it’s difficult for anyone to plausibly contest that in the context of Lincoln’s age, the seceding states had a better understanding of the country’s conceptual foundation than the Union’s own supporters, as might be paraphrased: “As we seceded from the British, now we secede from the Union.”

As I seem to recall the historian James McPherson writing some years ago, the real revolution was being waged by Lincoln, who by espousing the principle of keeping the country together at whatever cost was reinterpreting the nation’s founding in a completely new and different way. Seen in this light, the South’s secession was a pre-emptive counter revolution. Lincoln changed the rules of the game, and we might be able to muster a good debate on this topic.

But Dave’s too busy vigorously defaming what he imagines as Debbie’s character (and political views) to consider such matters for honest discussion. He decries the decadent American impulse to topple heroes and equates it with liberalism, although he offers no proof, and mistakes Debbie for a liberal without explaining what that might mean, preferring instead to let it serve as a term meant to inspire primal fear.

Hint to Dave: Debbie’s a libertarian. Arguably, there are more libertarians in conservative ranks than liberal, which is a discussion for another day. I’m the liberal 'round here.

You may begin the neo-Pavlovian salivating now.

At any rate, it’s all downhill from there, and I find it discouraging that the chief of the local Republican Party can’t muster a better argument than Dave does. Instead, Dave sprays conservative clichés in all directions, evidently in a calculated act of grandstanding, rather as though he sees Debbie’s presumed (and highly inaccurate) un-Americanism as a wonderful pretext to toss raw meat to the faithful. It may be good primeval politics, but it’s very poor argumentation.

Now, for my responses:

Does Dave really want us to believe that military service is a prerequisite for properly understanding the American dream?

Does he really think that taking an intellectually honest, critical look at our nation’s history somehow constitutes disloyalty to the concept?

Does he really want us to come away from all this with a view of the Republican Party as the entity that vigorously opposes free speech insofar as free speech implies a judicious look at cause and effect, and dare I say, a scientific approach to history?

Shall we be mindless drones deferring to the views of former soldiers?

If so, isn’t that a bit closer to fascistic ways of thinking than the American Dream?

Dave, you can do better – at least I hope so.

Your response to Debbie’s is about personal anger first and foremost, followed by rank politicking. Debbie’s message was this: “Lincoln … think about it.” Your response was this: “Lincoln … let’s not start thinking or anything subversive like that … just have faith in the myth, and damn the liberals.

That’s scary.