2008
Week 9
March 8, 2008

Hi

Rosenblatt is toast. The tension and debate on how we can keep the College World Series in Omaha produced options and opinions. The emotion and political posturing against leadership will stir the dust in the air for a long time. However, the nostalgic, colorful old landmark stadium will be gone after the games two years from now. Nostalgia brings true sadness.

When I see the data on rational options there is no debate left. If we are to compete with other cities ten years from now we will be compared with new downtown stadiums surrounded by hotels, riverwalks, restaurants and parking. To rebuild to high standards where we now are requires tearing it down. It costs the same as building elsewhere and all we have left of the present (for nostalgia) is the top of a hill, with parking. No hotels, restaurants, riverwalk. There is nothing left to say, but more will be said. Like me: why can't we use the U.P. site? Don't bother me with data. Put it there!

My point? I hate to tear down good buildings. I complain every time they tear up a 30-year-old strip mall. Planners tell me to relax because it is the developer's money. No it is not. It is my money. No one came in here with a gift. The new one is not an act of philanthropy. We are expected to pay for it, and we do.

Last week, I voted to spend millions to recycle the former Whittier School (about 20th and Vine) in Lincoln. It would cost less (per square foot) to tear it down and build a state of the art research center which the University needs. We then lost a beautiful stately reminder of the past, built like a rock 75 years ago. Thankfully, NU wants to recycle it. Are we nuts? (Final decision -- on the bldg and on being nuts -- still pending.)

Our university is going qangbusters on exciting new research. The grants, not state taxes, will pay the bills. Nebraska will gain an international name for some of the creative science. That is a subject for another day, but must be in our thinking about Whittier.

We are being hammered on the immigrant issue by letters and emails. Flag-waving souls accuse us of being un-American, immoral, stupid, and more. It is ridiculous. The bill proposes solutions that will not work. But they shout we are to do something. Anything. Make me feel good. Bash and immigrant. With a wet noodle.

One solution in the bill we rejected is to stop paying benefits to “these people.” (In the hearing a senator asked how we know what are these people? “They speak Spanish.”) We do not pay benefits. It is illegal. Pass this bill and fool folks into thinking we are big and bold? The second solution forces employers to check out status using a system filled with errors. Will not work.

That did not stop the chaotic talk, huffing and puffing. The governor, a victim of the foolish flack while encouraging it, was near shouting. I understand the frustration. Our chair stood tall when he withdrew his offer to talk some more. “We are shouting, not talking. Time to move on.” Thank you. We continue to get bashed for not passing a worthless bill.

Feels like insisting that we pass a law to put a string around the sun to keep it from setting. If we refuse to do that, we favor darkness. There is a solution. Get a new President who can work effectively with congress in the off-year of voting. Have rational debate with the feds, who hold all the cards. We have three excellent candidates, any one of whom would do this well. Meanwhile, go back to breathing.

Word of the week: turpitude n. depravity, baseness, shameful character, wickedness. (??? Those are not truly similar.)

I do not use that word every day, so was a bit startled when it dominated floor debate. The question was if moral turpitude should be inserted as limiting a ground for removal from office. So debate included a question whether a felony is evidence of turpitude. Yes. Well, not necessarily. O.K., yes. No?

A person of good character could commit a felony for reasons he considered necessary. Would we agree he was not depraved?

It is fun to examine words and how persons of differing views can use them. The root word is turpitudo, meaning nakedness or shameful. Nakedness is not necessarily shameful. Of course we developed the fig leaf industry to cover nakedness, but now the industry is going all out to design fig leaves that do not quite cover nakedness. So the spin, even in precise legal language, goes on.

Some threw in ethics, which really confuses it. I have spent entire days in academics sorting out the difference between morals and ethics. Not the same.

I wondered why we add “moral”? Does that make it good? How about immoral turpitude? If turpitude is shameful, would inturpitude be shameless? O.K., O.K., stop having fun.

Moral is especially slippery when used by religionists. Immoral is what you do that I would not do. As fifty years ago, to dance. People who claimed on the Bible as their guide opposed dancing, which several Biblical passages praise. Christians can never claim to be consistent. Righteous, but not consistent.

Seeking to be moral AND consistent,

Lowen