More on the Metro Commentary

Jim DeAngelis replied to me privately regarding the exchange below. Following my last point ("The alternative is permanent stagnation," he wrote:
Oops, Mike I missed this. Where's the information? We're not in a court where each side expresses itself and a judge/jury makes decisions as to who is right? All I've read are questions that no one can deal with, as noted above. . . . The mechanisms for discourse are limited (there's no courtroom or hearing). In this region, the political and civil leaders are in control of the conversation, and even some of the analysis that's making it into the public domain (i.e., Rand's stuff) is not as well grounded as some of us might hope. We're not in good shape. Accordingly, I think you're making a dichotomy our of analysis and logic, as presented in my e-mail, may be interpretated by some as an acceptance of the inevitable -- no change, we'll be okay, things will take care of themselves, our leaders are doing the best they can, etc.

And I replied:
I'm a lawyer, but I'm happy to move forward before a jury has reached its verdict. Lawyers often are. Do we have no information at all, or do we have incomplete information? I suspect that we agree that the latter is the case. Is the information we have sufficient for properly motivated people to take steps to move the region forward -- politically, economically, culturally -- even if we don't know precisely what the end-game is? I tend to think so, but there's plenty of room for disagreement. Do we have the right people, with the right openness and the right motivation, in control, who are willing to participate in a conversation about how to move forward? Clearly not. We agree on the fact that control of the political / civic discourse in the region has been concentrated for too long in the hands of people who have no interest in progress. > If anything that I may have said in reply to your email that could be read as implicit endorsement of acceptance of the inevitable, or of current leadership, . . . then I obviously erred almost catastrophically. (I can admit 3 mistakes before lunch!) Nothing could be further from my views!
The conversation continues!

Comments

0 Responses to "More on the Metro Commentary"

Search Pittsblog

About Pittsblog

Pittsblog 2.0 is written by Mike Madison, a law professor at the University of Pittsburgh. Send email to michael.j.madison[at]gmail.com. Mike also blogs at Madisonian.net, on law and technology. Chris Briem of Null Space drops by from time to time.

All opinions expressed at Pittsblog 2.0 are those of their respective authors and of no one (and no thing) else, least of all the University of Pittsburgh.

Pittsblog 2.0 has a motto: "It's steel good in Pittsburgh." Say it aloud, with a Pittsburgh accent.

Comments are moderated.
Subscribe to Pittsblog comments

Socialize



Blog Archive

Header Background

Header background images licensed from (left image) lemonad and (right image) plaskota under Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial - Share Alike 2.0 Generic licenses.

Credits

Copyright 2003-2010 Michael J. Madison - WP Theme by Brian Gardner - Blogger Blog Templates, ThemeLib.com