People have their reasons

We may be puzzled by our neighbors' decisions, about almost anything, but as writers we need to remember that our neighbors definitely had SOME reason for each decision.

This realization lies at the very heart of creating a compelling argument that involves an issue or topic or proposal about which reasonable people may disagree. I'm sure there are some people who, perhaps to simplify their life and free themselves up to think about other things, have default positions that they don't need to examine every day. For instance, if you have always voted Republican, and most of your family has voted Republican, that habit might become a default and the default beats out almost any amount of evidence that might argue for a different choice at the polls.

I thought about this today after reading a story in the New York Times (I begin my day with the Denver Post and Colorado Sun and the Times, all on an iPad since we can't get a physical paper delivered routinely to our home in the wilds of Highlands Ranch... but that's another tale). 

The theme of the reporting was that while scientists, health officials, and governmental leaders claim that problems like vaccine refusal or hesitation can be solved through more education, more sharing of facts, the truth is much simpler and more visceral.

One guy who was interviewed said that he felt trapped by many requirements in his life, at the mercy of supervisors scheduling his work hours to city and state ordinances that limited his recreation choices, from smoking to driving to camping overnight. His logic was that deciding what to put in his body was ONE choice that was his. He also finds all the "expert advice" to be patronizing, making him feel ignorant. So, despite what I might say was a dismissal of all sorts of evidence, including the fact that he would make himself much less vulnerable to a disease, he has stubbornly maintained that he won't be getting vaccinated.

I might make all sorts of arguments in his case that I would consider compelling. You might be thinking of many right now that you are certain would change the man's mind. 

We would both be wasting our breath, brains, ink, or pixels. 

What might change his mind? Technically, nothing. After all, his decision does not grow from any science or research or even self-serving logic. What might change is sheer convenience -- "hey, I can just walk into this King Soopers when I'm buying bread and get a free shot" -- or perhaps a close relative who has a brush with death due to the virus. Or some sort of bandwagon effect happens, where so many friends and neighbors have been vaccinated that he feels left out.

It's frustrating, but government's best action here is to keep making the vaccines convenient and free. Make them as ubiquitous as flu shots (though lots of people certainly refuse those, as well). Keep sending positive messages and reporting successes.

Some people refuse vaccines merely due to fear of needles, which seems silly to those who don't share that fear. But what if the vaccine came in pill form, or mixed in a soft drink? The point is to reduce even illogical reasons keeping people from doing something that is a public good.

Bottom line: our arguments need to be more complex and subtle than we might first imagine. 

Political choices run into the reality of math

Another example of how complex cause and effect can be in constructing arguments and in analyzing how something came to be can be found in the 2020 Census data I referred to earlier. The initial reaction was simple math: some states gained enough population to claim an additional House seat while others lost a seat.

More interesting is reporting today that some states did not match the predictions that the Census Bureau had made, based on their statistical models and preliminary data. When things do not turn out the way "the experts" predict, we begin looking for reasons that led to the unexpected effect.

Arizona, for instance, was predicted to pick up a seat, but did not. Florida was to gain two and Texas three. In the end, Arizona did not gain a seat at all, while Florida gained just one and Texas just two. 

None of those three states invested much time and money into preparing for the Census. Minnesota, however, picked up an unexpected seat after a five-year campaign to get people to respond to the Census. And New York only lost one seat, again after investing some money in encouraging their citizens to participate in the nation's headcount.

We can't do more than guess as to what larger effects states which are undercounted (as many suspect Arizona, Florida, and Texas to be) may experience. There will certainly be fewer federal dollars coming their way, which seems like a bad thing.

If the undercounted people are predominantly Black or Latino, drawing new districts may be affected, perhaps to the benefit of one political party.

As we build our arguments, the intricate and evolving relationship between cause and effect is where we need to spend a lot of time.

The stakes can be quite high. Consider the Biden administration's multi-trillion dollar proposals to improve infrastructure, education, and so much more. The discussions from all sides are all based on a proposed set of causes (hey! lots of money spent) and the much less clear effects that may result. 

Most students engaged in thinking about cause and effect by merely deciding to go to college. The "bet" was that investing x dollars and time in working toward a degree would produce a positive effect, like a better job or more money or just more satisfaction with life.

Don't you wish there were clearer lines that connect choices, investments, gambles and effects?

We hold (very few) truths to be self-evident

Ever find yourself asking, "Seriously? Why is this even a question?"

There are times -- many times -- when I find myself wondering why some question or issue or situation is being argued about. Sometimes I run across studies that confirm what common sense reveals at much less time and expense, though I guess it's a good thing to have common sense confirmed from time to time.

I am well aware that there are all sorts of "common sense" ideas and beliefs out there that insightful research reveals to be false. Assumptions and beliefs are strengthened by objective evidence.

Is there anyone who hasn't read or been told that "people use only 10 percent of their brain power"? Numerous studies have shown this is just not true and I'm not certain why this myth persists.

But there are other "arguments" that seem to be settled.

For instance, researchers continue to investigate the connections between low socio-economic status of families and relative success on standardized tests, like the ACT or SAT. Anyone who has spent any time in or around a classroom over the past few decades would NOT be surprised to find that there is a strong correlation, overall, between money and testing success.

It's not a direct cause and effect relationship (to build on some earlier posts) since there are plenty of people who overcome all sorts of hardships and succeed in the "education game." There are also plenty of people who come from privileged backgrounds that don't do well at all.

Still, the overall numbers never surprise us. Educational achievement in the U.S. can be guessed quite accurately by comparing ZIP codes of families.

But the most recent  "no brainer" is the discussion about the need for colleges to require COVID vaccinations for all students returning to campus next fall. Many colleges have long required a small number of vaccines for students, and the rationale is simply to provide as much protection from disease as possible in a learning environment that crowds people into tight spaces.

There are exceptions for verified health issues and for religious reasons, but is there really much debate to be had about the need for students to have had their measles-mumps-rubella shots? 

Fort Lewis and Colorado College and DU have announced being fully vaccinated as required for fall of 2021. CSU and CU, among others, are studying the possible requirement. 

And this morning I am asking myself, "Seriously? Why is this even a question?"

NOTE: Metro officials announced this afternoon that everyone WILL be required to be vaccinated in order to return to campus this fall. I assume someone was swayed by my argument (not!).

Our national reckoning with population is here

According to the 2020 Census Report released yesterday, the United State increased population by only 7 percent, among the lowest amounts in the nation's history.

Of course, the increase was not evenly distributed, so some states will gain a House seat (Texas gains two) and some will lose one. This result has the pundits all atwitter, per usual, speculating on how this will change American politics and (gulp) LIFE AS WE KNOW IT.

The problem is that cause and effect are not clear at this point. A clear trend is that warmer weather and more diverse job opportunities are driving a steady migration from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and West. That migration may or may not result in more progressive or less progressive voting patterns. No one really knows, but everyone loves to guess and yak about it endlessly.

I was struck by the fact that there are now more Americans over 80 years of age than under 2 years of age. THAT result means that our population growth is likely to remain low for some time to come since most growth comes from birthrates (not immigration). 

You don't need to be an expert in cause and effect to understand that the oldest of us will relatively soon be dying. This likely means that a giant transfer of wealth is going to occur quite soon, as the Silent Generation and the Boomers pass away, with their estates going to Gen X and Millennials. 

As a Boomer who likely is only staying "on planet" for another decade or two, this all sounds kind of exciting. I have no idea what effects will occur due to populations changes, but I will guess that some things will change dramatically. 

In a writing class, we often end up discussing cause and effect. After all, many arguments are based on "if we do this now, the following will occur." The challenge is finding the key causes and then making better guesses as to the eventual effects. 

For example, social media has exploded over the past 10-15 years, but who among us prophesied back in 2006 the international effects of social media, for good and definitely for ill?

The end of the Oscars?

I was delighted that my wife recorded the Oscars last night, so we could fast forward past commercials. Unfortunately, we also found ourselves fast forwarding past almost everything.

If you are like most humans, you skipped the annual tribute to the movies and I assure you that your life will be fine. Perhaps that is true EVERY year, but this year's show can only be described as excruciating. 

No songs beyond a few bars. No film clips beyond a few incomprehensible clips. No silly jokes or "insider" jokes since there was no host (this was the third year for that). The one potentially fun bit was some sort of music quiz with the stars, but that only proved that improv has its ups and downs. Lots of memories of old movies -- maybe when movies were not only important but entertaining? 

No fun... at all.

I often advise students to "write cinematically," and by that I mean to make significant scenes come alive, to consider dialog to establish characters, and to imagine readers as similar to viewers who we are trying to keep from turning the channel. What should we think of a show focused on movies that contains almost no movies, or clips of movies, or even pre-recorded mini-movies?

This show seemed to have a goal of keeping the smallest audience ever. If so, well done.

You would think that a show that celebrates cinema, quite literally, would be more than a mediocre podcast, but that's what we got.

I have other complaints, like the fact that even an old-timer like me was struck by how ancient almost everyone was, whether they were presenters or nominees. It was actually shocking to see Zendaya appear as a presenter. Huh? Someone under 60?

It was a tough year for everyone and even tougher for The Dream Factory, I guess.

One good thing that resulted? I got a glimpse of what hell might be like... forced to watch this Oscars show over and over.

I promise to mend my ways.

Our final essays can show how we have grown over the semester

Our Composing Arguments course is getting into the final two weeks of the semester, and next week's assignment is to write a review. I like this assignment because the range of potential topics is so vast -- from movies and TV to music to concerts, to restaurants to museums, to a brand of shoes to video games.

Anything a reader might be thinking about spending money or time or energy on is fair game.

I also like this assignment because a review is in many ways the most common form of persuasive writing and one of the most obvious in terms of the writer taking a position.

Of course, a thoughtful person is likely to find at least a few things they aren't fond of even while writing about something they highly recommend. This "qualifying" of our arguments is the mark of sophisticated thinking and writing, and probably is the reason we often talk about issues having "gray" areas. This can be frustrating to some, since it would be nice to find some "you can't possibly object to anything in this" arguments.

On the other hand, if something literally cannot be criticized in any way, what's the point of the argument (or the review, in this case)?

My favorite TV show from this past blighted year was "Ted Lasso," on Apple TV, starring Jason Sudeikis. It's a fish-out-of-water story about an American college football coach lured to England to coach a failing professional soccer team. 

The second season is scheduled to premier on July 23, which is quite exciting to Ted fans.

There's a bit of "Major League" at work in this series, since the team owner wants the team to fail miserably as a way to punish her ex-husband. In "Major League," the female owner hopes that the Cleveland Indians will perform so poorly that she can uproot the team to Florida.

I know that Apple TV is one of those optional steaming services, and thus there will be many who won't be able to watch this series (though Apple offers a free year of Apple TV when you purchase an iPhone or iPad, as a come on).

I don't want to launch into a full analysis of the show here, but will simply note that the core "feel" of the show was just what I needed during the height of the plague. It is ultimately optimistic and positive, showing the good in people who might seem superficially not-so-good. 

Ted may be a bit naïve, but he can also be shrewd and is always empathetic. It doesn't hurt that Sudeikis inhabits the role so well -- and earned him a Golden Globe for Best Actor in a TV comedy a few months ago.

There is so much content to be found on the varied TV platforms that even the best shows may get overlooked, and that is a great starting point for a review. You are offering a service to readers by recommending something they might really enjoy.

My quick summary of  "Ted Lasso" is probably not enough to get you to watch. You would need a bit more unless you think so highly of my opinions that you accept my advice on faith. 

Relying on readers to simply believe us, even without compelling evidence, is not an effective strategy for any sort of persuasive writing.

Repeat over and over: no claims without support.

Today's cynical thoughts on what ties us all together

There's a lot of punditry devoted to how America is becoming a more and more Sectarian society, with people clinging to their tribes and thinking of other tribes as "the enemy." Any tribe that feels threatened with changing status, like going from the majority to the minority (as non-Hispanic whites are projected to experience by mid-century), can create chaos and even violence in attempting to fend off that status change.

The current battle between political parties over VACCINES is an instance of this divide. I had to look it up, but the modern polio vaccine, developed by Jonas Salk, completed trials and become widely available in the mid-1950s. I was vaccinated while in elementary school and can't recall much agonizing over getting a shot -- well, no kid really looks forward to getting a shot, but everyone got the shot. Anyway, the idea that politics had anything to do with a vaccine that could alleviate suffering for so many was not part of the conversation.

By 1994, about 40 years later, polio had been eliminated in the Western Hemisphere. Think about that! A disease that had persisted for thousands of years was defeated by science and widespread vaccine use. But humans have poor group memory, I guess, because that triumph over disease never comes up any more. Polio is so "last century."

The arguing will go on, because that is what Americans do with whatever spare time they have, but I suspect that vaccinations will fitfully proceed, that those proudly skeptical and reluctant citizens will eventually shrug and quietly get vaccinated, and that the current pandemic will slowly recede from that leaky societal memory.

It won't take all that long for Covid to join polio as another historical footnote.

And here's the somewhat cynical hope: I see in the news that rental car rates have tripled in the past couple months. Evidently, rental car companies sold much of their cars during the pandemic and will take some time to recover. And air travel costs are projected to go higher than they were pre-pandemic, perhaps by this summer. Free at last!

I find comfort in what connects people, and one of of those connections is that we all experience the effects of large companies pushing prices higher when they can get away with it. "Those other people," meaning shadowy business owners, understand profits and pay scant attention to political debates.

I know. I know. Some corporations have made statements about voting rights and police restructuring and social justice... and so much more. But aren't we all united in knowing that, ultimately, those corporations will return to spreadsheets and investments and raw profits, often at our expense?

There are red states and blue states, though such adjectives are never very accurate or helpful. What binds us is knowing that we all live in "green" states, and I don't mean environmentally conscious.

The green is money and what most of us share is the reality that a very small percentage of our fellow citizens possesses most of it.

But, by all means, let's keep wrangling about the elimination of a few Dr. Seuss books.

Bread and circuses, my friend. As it has always been.

That 'sunking' feeling

I saw the phrase "sunk costs" twice this week in very different news stories and that reminded me of the difficulty of making big changes and shrugging off long histories. 

Sunk costs are basically money or time or effort spent in the past which make it difficult to pursue new actions or policies. It is classified as a logical fallacy. A simple example might be ordering a sandwich at a restaurant that turns out to be both delicious and WAY larger than you imagined. If it's me, this often leads to eating until I am uncomfortable since I already am paying for the entire sandwich. 

I'm sure my childhood and being reminded of starving people in Africa -- and the need to clean my plate -- is a factor, but there is also that whole sunk cost fallacy working. I might not be getting my money's worth if I leave half a sandwich behind, despite feeling quite full and satisfied.

Another example of sunk costs might be when we drive through a blinding snowstorm to attend a concert or game because, by God!, we paid for those tickets and a little thing like risking our lives on the roads just isn't enough to keep us away.

Researchers say that we keep track of costs that exceed benefits in a separate "account" in our brains, and that even though the money or effort has been expended we can't quite let that money or effort go. Nothing is really lost beyond the experience. 

When developing our arguments, we should keep "sunk costs" in mind as factors that might affect our positions. How much do we invest in maintaining old technology, for instance, rather than recycle or toss the old tech (like a phone) in favor of something much faster and more advanced? 

After all, why change something that is working, even if "working" is a very low bar?

How old is 'old enough'?

All the data indicate that making 25 the minimum age to buy or own a gun could be the gun safety action that America needs... but the odds are incredibly long against that happening.

People between 16 and 24 make up 16 percent of the population but commit HALF of all murders, most with guns. Researchers have long known that key parts of the brain that regulate dangerous behaviors do not fully develop until about age 25. Plenty of people over 25 do commit gun crimes, of course, along with all sorts of additional dangerous behaviors. But it's tough to overlook the large number of young offenders.

Car insurance and the ability to rent a car are both tied to turning 25 marking a distinct change in behavior among young people. Insurance rates are quite high for young drivers, based on actuarial tables. There are exceptions, of course, and people CAN rent a car when younger than 25, but there are some hoops to jump through, at least.

How would young people feel about a federal law limiting most gun ownership until after 25? Let's assume that an exception for gun ownership might be created, say, for hunting rifles.

I recall quite passionate arguments that contrasted being forced (by the military draft) at 18 to serve in the military with laws that did not allow those young soldiers and sailors to drink, or even vote, until 21. That seeming hypocrisy led to lowering of age limits from time to time, particularly for voting, but we have seen age limits changed both up and down in individual states for various reasons. 

Florida raised the minimum age for gun ownership from 18 to 21 after the Parkland massacre, for instance. And it happened in just a few months. 

The legal drinking age was lowered to 18 near the end of the Vietnam War, then adjusted to 19 for a time and finally returned to 21, where it remains. 

But 21 is basically a random age to settle on for qualifying for almost anything. Should 25 become the new 21?

Hey, it's worth a discussion.

We don't let facts get in the way of a good (fearful) story

One reason to read widely is to encounter ideas you would never have thought of on your own, and today's example is from the New York Times Morning Report. It gets into irrational fears and our tendency to not be very good at risk assessment.

The shorthand version of much study and research is that humans come to accept risks that have "always" been around them. A basic example is the 40,000 traffic deaths that occur in the U.S. each year. That is a big number and dwarfs the recent news about six women afflicted by blood clotting... which may or not not be caused by a reaction to the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. 

One point of the research is that most of us do not panic when we hear about the trade-off between the convenience and freedom of driving our cars and the rather regular reality of people being injured and dying in car accidents. 

The research on whether there is clear cause and effect in the case of the J&J vaccine (and cause and effect arguments are often the basis for our persuasive essays) is still ongoing. At this point, the statistic to ponder is that the odds are either about one in a million (dividing six by the seven million doses given) or one in several hundred thousand (if you include only women ages 18-50 in the denominator). Either way, the odds are quite good for those taking the vaccine. 

Humans have an irrational hope of being 100 percent safe, no matter the task or situation, but to carry on with life we eventually settle for "acceptable" risk, since there is always some chance of something bad happening. 

The odds are pretty decent that I will not be in a traffic accident today when I venture out for some delayed shopping. The odds are really good that I will not be in a fatal accident. I guess I "know" that something bad might happen -- and perhaps that knowledge motivates me to not drive too fast or take chances on the road -- but I don't spend time saying a prayer to St. Christopher before turning the key on the old RAV4. 

After all, I have lived with this risk my whole life. As the research shows, I can't really imagine life without this risk.

But Covid-19 vaccines are a new risk, just introduced into our lives, and many of us simply have not had time to incorporate this new risk into our thinking. 

It turns out that the facts -- the odds -- often are not enough to overcome our irrational fears. That seems like an important truth for writers constructing arguments that advocate for change. 

Did you miss me?

Not that my missing posts from Monday-Thursday of this week should have caused anyone alarm, but the simple explanation is that I forgot my phone when we headed to Seattle to see grandsons and parental units last Sunday.

The phone was charging and you'll be happy to know that it possessed a robust amount of power when we returned, just before yet another spring snowstorm, yesterday evening.

I tried to log onto my Google accounts through my wife's phone and iPad, but ran into a true First World problem: Google did not recognize either device and kept wanting to send a log in code to -- you guessed it -- my phone. There was a link to click if I did not have my phone, but the security question did not seem familiar and I never could answer it to the AI's satisfaction.

So I was effectively off-grid for nearly five days. 

The good news is that I could still check in on the world through the Seattle Times and through local news recordings my wife could access on her iPad. I missed a couple emails, it turns out, that were time-sensitive, but nothing major. 

Stuff continued to happen, as I discovered last night when I started plowing through the 228 emails in my account along with various Facebook notifications. That "stuff" happened without me as an active observer, which was a great reminder that being constantly tied to the interwebs is NOT a prerequisite for living.

In fact, I spent extra time with the grandsons -- when I could pry them from their own screens. I actually spent some time sitting in the yard, enjoying the sun (it was gorgeous in Seattle, and that is a rare thing) and watching some industrious squirrels enjoying themselves.

But now we are home and all my screens were waiting patiently for me to sign on and resume changing the world (or not). 

It's nice to be reminded, from time to time, that we are not very important in the grand scheme of things, and that our constant screen watching is mostly passive.

Still, I vow to not forget my phone ever again. 

We have to start somewhere

Creating committees to study issues is back in vogue, and my first reaction tends to be, "So what were we doing BEFORE about this problem or challenge?" 

President Biden is reportedly organizing a bipartisan committee to study ways to restructure the Supreme Court. In Colorado, at least two proposed state laws, one on drastically altering policing inside schools and one that would significantly add regulation to social media and other online companies, have been withdrawn and the sponsors have settled for less contentious legislation that creates study committees.

When a city or state or nation encounters a large number of problems, some of which have obviously been building for many years, these study committees proliferate. 

For people who want relief RIGHT NOW, of course, hearing that any concrete solutions or progress will be delayed is frustrating. When people get frustrated and angry enough, ANY new ideas may be welcome, even if they entail unintended consequences and even downright negative effects.

If we can step back a bit and adopt a somewhat longer term view of things, we realize that it's a good idea to start sometime to think analytically about solutions to long-standing problems. Legislation needs to start somewhere and that starting point is right now for a lot of things.

Should these study committees have begun earlier, maybe years ago? Have past studies been left to gather dust long enough that circumstances have changed, thus leaving us feel pessimistic about any potential for progress? Will enough legislators be persuadable, if new ideas are presented to them?

Yes, yes, and probably not.

But gathering of facts and analysis of options must come before "smart" actions, just as most argumentative writing must begin. Otherwise we are simply flailing about, hoping something works.

So bring on the study committees. The challenge for the media and for citizens is to not forget they exist and to demand to know what they come up with.

Our ignorance is showing... again

Today's rant has been building and I seem to find myself more often yelling at the TV during newscasts, and it's about -- of all things -- vaccination passports. 

I hear governors and commentators and legislators and people on the street objecting to the VERY IDEA of "creating division among Americans" by creating some sort of system to prove that people have been vaccinated against COVID-19 (or 21, or whatever variation we are on). 

I accept that there is some small fraction of the populations that, for whatever reason, should NOT take the vaccine -- under 10 percent? -- but it's time for everyone else to get on board. 

The misunderstanding of some people in this country concerning the idea of freedom lies at the heart of why we can't seem to get things done. The ship has sailed on the idea that Americans can pretty much do as they please. From traffic laws to "no shoes, no shirt, no service" to wear a seatbelt to drivers licenses to mandatory school ages to being cleared for a passport... the list of requirements is never-ending. 

All of them, in some sense, create restrictions of some sort, and almost all of them benefit the larger society. 

So here is one guy who will gladly favor some method of assuring those around us that we have done at least the MINIMUM in making everyone just a bit safer.

Politicians and pundits will always create whatever confusion and division in whatever ways serve them. To argue, somehow, that getting vaccinated is part of some mythical American freedom that never existed is criminal.

Just remember: you won't see any "no smoking" signs in church. Turns out that people know how to "act right" if the manipulators butt out.

End of today's pointless rant.

When the very idea of civic trust seems lost

I see that a bill requiring owners to report a lost or stolen gun to authorities within five days of the loss/theft is going to soon pass the Colorado legislature and likely become law. This seems like a no-brainer to me, much as mandating that a person who wants to own or carry a gun should have some sort of training or license, like a drivers license. 

I also see that zero Republicans voted for the House version of the gun theft bill. This also, unfortunately, is a no-brainer, or at least entirely predictable.

The primary objection is that the government would then need to keep track of who owns guns, or at least some of them. I'm not certain how such a law works if the government does not know anything about who owns guns and how many PRIOR to a theft or someone just misplacing a gun. So I guess I understand some of the discussion and opposition on the pragmatic level.

But American politics have now sorted us in to two basic camps: one has faith in government (assuming good intent, though no one should be naïve about government always functioning perfectly) and one has little faith in government and assumes bad intent or negligence.

Sometimes the party positions can reverse, which is frustrating but entertaining in a macabre way. 

At this point, neither major political party can get by a lack of trust in one another. We are stuck in a never-ending "ad hominem" rhetorical fallacy in which merely identifying as subscribing to a political party means you are suspect. More than that: you are now fair game for attacks.

I know politicians have behaved like this in the past quite often. The difference now is that a large percentage of citizens have adopted this same "us vs. them" approach. 

But there are occasional glimmers of hope and even agreement, as in polls showing that a large majority of Americans approved of the Biden rescue plan, despite universal opposition by Republicans. 

Actively hating a few neighbors is exhausting and actively hating huge groups of people even more so. 

I became a bit weary of actively hating Donald Trump, for instance, though if pressed I would say I still do. But the reality is that what I really enjoy is the absence of Donald Trump. 

I value a bit of calm and opportunities to enjoy spring and baseball and surprising TV shows and so much more. I know I can't hide from the world forever -- the world has a way of seeking us all out.

But I CAN choose not to seek out conflict that has little to do with me.

 

If you build it...

The word of the day is "infrastructure," and somehow just defining the word has become the argument of the day in politics.

Dictionaries were invented partly to avoid such controversy by providing accepted definitions for words, and the farther back the word could be found in past books, poems, and newspapers, the stronger the basis for the definition.

Here's a typical dictionary definition: the system of public works of a country, state, or region. Also, the resources (such as personnel, buildings, or equipment) required for an activity.

That definition seems a bit limited, since many businesses depend much more on software and computer hardware systems than on buildings or even people. But "system" likely includes all sorts of unlisted items and contributing subsystems.

The interstate highway system, which was born in 1956 and eventually produced over 45,000 miles of new highways that fundamentally changed the country, began as a bill titled, The National Interstate and Defense Highways Act. Even back then, getting the key word -- defense -- in the title of the bill was important.

I dimly recall I-80 finally opening from Davenport to Des Moines when I was a sophomore in high school, and the basic system took over 14 years to construct and billions of dollars.

It's another reminder that the country can do big things, and that change can come rather quickly, in historical terms. I can be as impatient as the next guy, but I have to admit that the sheer volume and impact of technological systems, not to mention infrastructure systems, that I have experienced over seven decades is breathtaking.

I have no idea how to even measure the potential benefit of the current effort to create a new push for American infrastructure (and there will always be costs and downsides of such huge programs). But the country's last giant government infrastructure program is now over 50 years old. 

I get it: no matter the disagreement, it all becomes tribal these days. And tribes often settle for disagreements over definitions rather than addressing common needs and challenges.

But if Americans end up seeing real benefits from whatever Congress creates, all will be forgotten. And then we can get back to arguing over the need to arm ourselves because we fear our government and our fellow citizens. Oh, and bathrooms. And British royalty.

You know. Important stuff.

What happens when more students get a chance?

We don't really know, but the pandemic may provide a few answers.

I read today that more high school seniors are applying to selective colleges and to MORE colleges and that experts say that is due to SAT and ACT tests being optional in the admissions process due to the pandemic limiting who could take those tests over the past year.

If a wider range of applicants are admitted -- and it appears that Ivy League schools will reveal who is in, who is waitlisted, and who is out on Tuesday night -- then we all will be left with questions about the importance of those national tests. Of course, there will be a lag in discovering if admitting a wider range of seniors will result in any changes in college success. It's one thing to get in, and another to do well once on the Harvard or Yale campus.

I have a suspicion that we would be pleasantly surprised at how successful an almost random selection of applicants might be, no matter the campus. I also suspect that Ivy League schools admitting students in roughly the same percentages of the American population might be the biggest single "game changer" for the future of American society across the board.

It would be a cool experiment to run, IMHO, with no real downside. Those rich white kids who would not make the cut would be "forced" to attend a great state school or some local private college and I am certain they would be fine. 

After all, they would still be rich and white and it's tough to go wrong with that combination.

I will add one caveat: critics often question the value of those standardized tests, and there are all sorts of reasons to wonder if they really can predict future success. But I have been an independent ACT panel member for many years, and my basic job is to confirm that there is one and only one correct answer for each test item (if you think about it, THAT is quite important for testing). A secondary job is to catch text items that favor one group of students over others based on experience.

That second one is challenging, since students who were lucky enough to enjoy great schools and teachers and supportive family for years really are, by definition, "advantaged." 

What is too bad is that we maintain a system that guarantees that some children will NOT receive a great education. We also live in a system that guarantees a percentage of children will not have enough to eat. 

I would hate to see my little side gig of being a test reader for ACT go away as tests lose their influence, but I am excited to see what happens when those tests are not blocking applicants and when all that tutoring for well-do-do kids loses power.

We should be checking the make up of this coming fall's Ivy League new freshmen on Wednesday. It's a small group of people but a solid indicator of trends.

Today's key rhetorical fallacy

Most rhetoric courses spend some time on defining and warning against using logical fallacies when composing arguments. 

Most people are aware that using an "ad hominem" argument is not acceptable -- that is one where we simply attack the person making a point, and was popular on the playground when I was a kid: "You're a butthead!" Most of us have heard of the slippery slope fallacy -- "OMG! This horrible thing will happen because we made that unwise choice, and then things will get even worse. Arghh!" 

Politics are awash in both of these.

But the political fallacy most on my mind these days is a form of "a priori" argument. This is a corruption of logos that begins with a made up fact or trend and THEN builds arguments to counter that fictional starting point.

Despite there being no discernable evidence of election fraud in 2020, many states are considering legislation that is designed to make voting "more secure." That seems like a classic case of a solution in search of a problem, and I'm sure this strategy will face all sorts of legal opposition and will animate both political parties for years.

To overcome an "a priori" fallacy you need to be able to prove that it is false but also get those who hold those false beliefs to change their opinion about that original set of "facts."

That is where things are stuck right now. One party has invested so much effort in creating and sustaining the election fraud Big Lie that it is unlikely that it can quickly pivot to another strategy. The other major party is forced to oppose even reasonable adjustments to voting. 

The bad news for a writer looking to sharpen arguments is that logic fails when there are errors in the "a priori" assumptions the writer or audience hold. 

A classic syllogism:

Socrates is human.
All humans are mortal.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

If we dispute that first statement, or if we simply choose to ignore it, confusion and misinformation prevails. 

Need further evidence as to why establishing clear and supported basic facts are essential to creating successful arguments?

Play ball in memory of me

By sheer calendar coincidence, today, April 1, falls on Maundy Thursday plus Opening Day for Major League Baseball plus April Fools Day. There is no inherent importance here but this confluence of celebrations/events is given some extrinsic importance due to the human need to find connections.

I am just as intrigued by such coincidences as the next guy, I admit, but let's look at each of these briefly before we simply smile and enjoy the near-70 degree temps here on the Front Range that are promised.

I had to do some research to understand the meaning of the word "maundy" -- my memory from Catholic school was that we called today Holy Thursday. But I like what I found, which is that "maundy" comes from the Latin word for "command," and the command Jesus issues is a good one: Love one another as I have loved you. It's part of the last supper story but this command seems like a good one to apply to all our relationships, particularly in these challenging times.

The Rockies begin their long season this afternoon here at home for the first time in a decade. There could be snow on the ground but this year we are looking at sunny skies, temps near 70 (and maybe 80 on Sunday). They are letting about 21,000 attend in person and I plan to watch on TV.

Opening Day is symbolic of hope. All the teams start even, though logic tells us that most of them will not win a majority of their games and that baseball is the toughest sport. Batters who are successful 30 percent of the time become celebrities. Imagine boasting to your boss that you are successful 30 percent of the time as a cashier or bank teller or chef... And don't get me started on the success rates we expect from parachute packing (99 percent is unacceptable!).

Reality is likely to strike Rockies fans early this year, with future Hall of Famer Nolan Arenado now with St. Louis, with one starting pitcher our for at least a month with an injury, and with everyone predicting a 100-loss season. Oh, and their first four games are against the World Champion Dodgers. 

The Dodgers are heavy favorites to repeat as champions but predictions are wildly inaccurate about any ONE baseball game. After all, even the very best teams will lose 60-70 of their 162 contests.

So it won't be a shock if the Rockies win today. We could easily find ourselves at the top of the National League West, at least for a day. And THAT is why April Fools applies. This silly day reminds us that stories that seem too good to be true or that are too outrageous even for social media eventually give way to reality.

Still, as spring beckons we can all enjoy a day of reveling in a bit of hope.