Personal in Public

Today I was waiting for a bus. Not unusual at all. Today I was waiting for a bus. And there was a couple under the bus shelter. At first I didn't realize they were together. His beard was scraggley and he looked bit older than she was and and vaguely homeless. In his right hand was a tall can wrapped in a brown paper bag. Her clothes were neat and if her wig was off-center, it was just by a tiny bit. She leaned away from him as he talked to her. I was making a few calls on my cell, but watched them out of the corner of my eye. Eventually I realized that even though she would step away whenever he got closer, they knew each other. I felt uncomfortable watching them, and tried to look away, but their body language made me more uncomfortable than the watching. Eventually the exchange became physical: he grabbed her arm and she tried to pull away. She waved her other arm at a passing police car. He was smiling, a playful, childlike smile and her movements were theatrical so I wasn't sure how seriously I should take it. Then he wrapped his arms around her waist and her struggle seemed less theatrical.

I stepped closer to them and asked "Are you okay?" He told me that she was, that they were just playing. She said nothing. I looked directly at her and asked two more times before she said she wasn't. He dropped his beer and it foamed around their feet. Not really having a plan, I asked him "Could you stop that, please?" He paused as I stared at him. He repeated that they were just playing as I continued to stare, but he let her go and I said thank you. She commented that she just got out of the hospital. He didn't touch her while I was there, but when the bus came neither of them got on. Now, I wonder if there was anything I could/should have said or done to make a difference.

A Little Nikki Giovanni is a Beautiful Thing

I do like my Youtube:

I will stay if...

Someone forwarded me a link that I found really interesting. The Great Lakes Urban Exchange (GLUE) "is a growing network of young leaders who are committed to the revitalization of the cities of the Great Lakes region, through building a constituency, sharing information, telling our stories, and advocating for what our cities need." They are collecting images of people with posters that say "I will stay if..." It's an interesting idea, though I'm not sure how they mean to use these images (To convince policy makers what their cities need? Not with images by themselves--these definitely are not representative of the city at large. To illustrate what they've found in surveys of residents? That would add a nice visual. To spark conversation among those looking to improve their city? Excellent!) Over 80 people had submitted images about Detroit.

I admit to being a little disturbed by one sign that wants "loitering in Midtown" to be addressed. Hmm. Really? I work in Midtown and I can't say I've been bothered by excessive "loitering" so I'm a little curious which undesirables the person does not want in her neighborhood.

My favorites involve people who've turned the statement around to be "I am staying..." Some completions to that are "to be part of change," "because I am Detroit," "to make a difference" and "to work with my community." And I know it's not a scientific study, but I will mention that several of the people's signs are asking for better public transportation and there are a few that want a better educational system.

One of the images from the site http://gluespace.org/iwillstayif/index.php?/project/detroit/

The way the world works

I am naive. If the legally elected president is forced out of a country by the military, I think that is clearly a coup. So I would think that the proper course of action is to officially declare it a coup and, as required by the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act, send no funds to the installed government. It seems very clear to me. But, like I said, I'm naive and believe in a right way to do things. If, say, around spring of 2008, the Marines decided to ship out then-President George W. Bush, I would not have done my "finally!" happy dance. I was willing to save that for Inauguration Day. I need at least a pretense of democracy.

So why is the administration of President Obama having to be dragged by the rest of the hemisphere into speaking out against the coup in Honduras? Why is Secretary of State Clinton not willing to say that elected Honduran President Zelaya should be returned to power? Why is she carefully avoiding officially labeling his ouster as a "coup" so that funds (we're talking $100 million in aid here) can still flow to Honduras?

While I continue to shake my head, check out an article in the UK Guardian, Does the US back the Honduran coup?, and a story from Associated Press, Zelaya to discuss Honduras crisis with Clinton.

Biking Ideas for Detroit

There's an op-ed column in the NY Times, Bike Among the Ruins, that describes an incident in which the writer crashed his bicycle and flew across Woodward. He states that anywhere else he would have been quickly hit by an oncoming car, but "this being the Motor City, the street was deserted, completely motor-free." From there he suggests that Detroit can be reborn into a bicyclists' utopia with the bicyclists powering the city's revival.

Um.

Definitely it is an interesting essay. Definitely I dream dreams of Detroit becoming Bicycle Heaven. And yet I wonder exactly how late at night the writer was out riding because no matter how late I have been out, I have yet to see Woodward free of vehicle traffic. And there is something disturbing about his attempt to give the impression that Detroit is deserted and that the streets are open and just waiting for cyclists. Realistically--I bike in this city and I like biking here, but cars (and, really, there are a lot of cars in Southeastern Michigan) do not respect bicycles and seem to think we should be on the sidewalks. I do not bike on Woodward. I do not have nerves of steel so I try to stay on the smaller streets.

A bixi rental station in Montreal

This weekend I learned about bixi, a bike rental program provided by the Canadian city of Montreal. People pay a fee to access the system and there is no additional charge for rides that are 30 minutes or less. Stations are located every few blocks and a bike can be returned to any station. The plan is to have 300 rental stations and 3000 bikes. Right now there are considerably less than that and the bikes seem to be only in the city center.

I love this idea. But would it work in Detroit? I'm not sure. As I said Detroiters do not have a culture of easily sharing the road with bikes. Montreal is really a bike city--supposedly there are 500km of bike paths in the city. This is a city that had a bike parking station so that people could leave their bikes safely while they went to enjoy the jazz festival. It's a different kind of place. Additionally, the bixi depends on people using their credit cards at the self-service stations. There is a substatial cross-section of Detroit that would not be served by a system that operated in that way. Finally, it is the city that runs Montreal's system. The City of Detroit, which struggles to provide basic city services, could not afford to do that.

The self-service rental machine at a bixi station

Another bicycle model is that of the apparently now defunct Decatur Yellow Bikes. They took bike donations and repaired them, painted them yellow, and let folks "adopt" a bike for $25.

Hmmm...so many ideas...

A long four-day week in Detroit

Tuesday two young men with machine guns fired on a crowd at a bus stop, hitting seven teenagers. Thankfully all are still alive. See story on WYXZ news, also which also includes a statement from Wayne County Prosecutor Kym Worthy. City Councilwoman Monica Conyers resigned after admitting to selling her vote (story on AP...I wouldn't link to the major local papers because the comments make my stomach hurt).

Seems like with everything I've heard this week, I've just been stuck on "But what do we do about it?" I'm still stuck there.

"Be silent, or say something better than silence. "

People, the world does not need to know all your business. Really. I swear. I know that this is hard to believe, particularly given all the water cooler discussions on Jon and Kate, but it's true. (And really there needs to be a Nonproliferation Agreement for reality shows. I'm just sayin')

Why is Mark Sanford still talking? He left the country for five days, not bothering to let anyone know where he was. Perhaps he felt he had no pressing gubernatorial responsibilities after the lawsuits that students and school administrators filed over his refusal to accept stimulus funds had been settled (the state Supreme Court ruled that it was the legislature's decision and the state's lawmakers had already passed a budget that made use of that money...see CNN story for more detail). In any case, oopsie. He held a news conference, admitted his affair with an Argentine woman, and said he would pay back the state funds he had misused to finance a 2008 trip to Argentina. End of story, right? Apparently not, since then the South Carolina governor has opted to do interview after interview, seemingly unable to contain himself. For whatever reason he felt the need to share that his mistress is his "soulmate" (uh, sweetie, #4 on the list of ways not to reconcile with your wife: insist your mistress is your soulmate) and that he has "crossed the line" with other women as well, but not the "ultimate line." Help. The South Carolina GOP is attempting to shush him now--actively working for his resignation (see story on POLITICO).

Whew, anybody else feel the institution of marriage needs defending here? Because suddenly I'm feeling all anti-marriage...I mean even if did find the perfect woman and it was legal for us to get married--I wants no parts of this mess. In order to defend marriage, I think the South Carolina legislature needs to pass a constitutional amendment annulling the Sanfords' marriage and prohiting him from remarrying. Ever. And the US Congress can enact a law that ensures that no future marriages of Sanford, no matter where performed, will be recognized by the federal government. I'm just sayin'.

There's an interesting op-ed piece on the New York Times website about social conservatives and hypocrisy.

And one more question: do South Carolinians feel embarrassed and ashamed because of this? Are people cracking jokes about their state? Or are they allowed to feel outraged without the not-all-subtle hints that they were somehow responsible for and deserving of the shenanigans from their public officials? I'm wondering because Detroit sure caught it over Kwame Kilpatrick.