Skip to main content

Give an Inch to Gain a Mile

Imagine with me, if you will, a non-railed causeway that is just wide enough for two cars to pass.

Now imagine that you are driving a car on that causeway when you look up and see another car coming at you.  You need to get to the other side.  They need to get to the other side.  It seems scary and dangerous to move over.  There's no railing, and a precipitous drop into the water awaits if you go too far.  As I see it, there are five options:

1) Back up until you get to the start of the causeway so that the other car can get past you and out of your way.
2) Force the other driver to back up until you can get past him.
3) Sit there bumper to bumper and don't go anywhere.
4) Try to shove the other car off the causeway.
5) Carefully move to the side while the other driver does the same in order to provide space for both cars to get where they're going.

Options 1 and 2 put one of the drivers in the position that they might encounter the same situation the next time they attempt to cross.  Option 3 prevents both drivers from arriving at their destination, all the while stopping traffic all the way back up the causeway.  Option 4, well, the damage to the cars, the loss of life, not to mention the crime committed in the process all seem to be bad ideas.

That leaves us with option 5.  Clearly it can be unsettling to move over and be so close to falling off the edge of the causeway, in whole or in part, but you know that there is enough space, and if both drivers are careful, if both drivers move, if they will work together, they will make it work and get where they want to go.  It might take a little time to get it right, but it will provide both parties the opportunity to get to their destinations.

Options 1-4 have clearly not worked.  It is time for our state and national representatives and senators to take option 5.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

All for one?

Yesterday I was in a union meeting.  Among other things, a brief discussion was had about the evolution of individual contracts versus group contracts in particular among ballet and theater companies, not necessarily on the opera side of things.  It was pointed out that the movement began primarily because more and more dancers wanted to be seen as soloists in the troupe rather than "ensemble dancers", and they wanted to negotiate their own contracts accordingly.  Over time that has led to less negotiating power for dancers, ultimately developing into much lower pay, often the legal minimum salary for dancers. That led me to connect the dots between that devolution of solidarity in the ranks of ballet troupes where each had been a part of the braided fabric, strong and durable, to the political devolution we're starting to see around the world.  For some time now, countries have been murmuring about wanting out of the EU.  Granted, there are positives and nega...
Post a Comment
Read more

A letter to Rachel

I just wrote this letter to Rachel Maddow. Hi Rachel, and her team, (Disclaimer: I wanted to write something shorter and more to the point, but this wound up being shaped in my mind like one of your A-blocks, with a somewhat-random-and-seemingly-out-of-the-blue starting point that comes around to underscore the point that is being crafted for the end just before the break.  Please understand that as you start this.) While I love to laugh and know the value of laughter to help us through tough times, I have been frustrated on occasion with the laughter that happens on any number of news shows when describing our illustrious President's behavior.  Don't get me wrong, I understand that things are so bizarre for normal, rational people that it seems uncomfortable and inconceivable that someone would act the way he acts, and so we laugh.  However, it is my opinion and belief that serious times and serious actions call for serious people and serious responses.  ...
Post a Comment
Read more