Reflections

It has been nearly a year since I began writing this column and, what with the impending New Year and the near mandatory reflections that accompany it, I thought it appropriate to do the same.

This will be my 49th post. No, not quite a full year as I began in mid-January. Nevertheless, when I began this enterprise I was afraid of running out of topics every week. Keep in mind that I had no desire to be a reporter and re-hash stories already covered unless I could provide a different angle and pose interesting, humorous, and/or insightful commentary. Boy, was I underestimating the world around me. There is scant evidence that our daily dose of corruption, scandal, incompetence,unintended consequence, and just plain screwy events within the human experience will be declining anytime soon. (I’m already working on two pieces for the new year.)

I’m also encouraged by the number of folks who have dropped by for a look-see. I didn’t install the hit counter at the outset (probably due to some secret fear that it would rest on zero for a lengthy time) so real numbers aren’t available and that’s fine with me. It does, however, provide encouragement in my endeavor to challenge and simultaneously entertain. Without a marketing department or publicist, though, I rely on you to spread the word. I urge you to pass along those pieces that you find interesting and include a link to my page. Like it or not, we are the grass roots that inspire change of any positive kind and the more of us involved, the better for us all.

I look forward to my continued effort within these pages. I have little doubt that weekly fodder will be eternally available and continue to believe in the power of convictions and expectations. Trust me: it is definitely NOT just you!

They're the Seasons*

No, it doesn’t roll off the tongue as well as 'tis the season, but, to be fair, we do have more than one holiday this month. So let’s take a moment to review our options, shall we? I use the word “options” loosely, of course because all three of them rely upon specific religious or cultural affiliations.

First of all, we have Christmas: the most widely acclaimed holiday to celebrate in December. The celebration is limited to Christians, though, as it centers around the immaculate conception and birth of Jesus Christ, the Savior. I suspect many others sneak into the tent for the express purpose of the presents that go hand in hand with the more serious tenets. I was raised within Christian confines, but have chosen faith over religion as my years have advanced. Regardless, I do have one question regarding Christmas: we know Jesus lived a specific number of years, months, and days, don’t we? Sure we do. Well, if Easter changes yearly, why does Christmas always fall upon the 25th? After all, one is the birth and the other the resurrection (3 days after the death) so why are they not separated by a fixed number of days? And why does Easter always fall on Sunday and Christmas is open for any day of the week? Let me know if you figure this one out, will you?

OK, on to Hanukkah. This December holiday is reserved for the Jewish community and lasts eight days and since the Jews don’t consider Jesus any more than a mortal man, they celebrate the festival of lights. Each night for eight nights, another light of the Menorah is lit. Presents? Apparently so, but, from what I understand, far from the opulent types Christians enjoy. The timing is different and the holiday can occur anywhere from late November through December.

Not to be outdone, the African-American community has decided to celebrate Kwanza in December. This holiday is more of a celebration of culture rather than religion and was created in 1966. A couple of things here: I’d say the Christians and Jews have seniority over Kwanza by over a couple of thousand years, give or take. And if the African-Americans wanted to celebrate their heritage and draw attention to their ancestry, why wouldn’t they pick a month with nothing going on? January, maybe. St Valentine has February, the Irish have March, and Easter rolls around in April or May so yes, January would be a great time, what with Martin Luther King Day and all. Nope. They picked December.

So we have three “holidays” falling almost simultaneously and the overlapping has created the shit storm over whether to say Merry Christmas or Happy Holidays or maybe even Happy Kwanza. Here’s what I think: in conversations with folks you know, it would be appropriate to use the appropriate holiday greeting, should you know which one it might be. Otherwise, “Have a happy holiday” casts a wide net over whichever one might apply and everyone is happy. Right? No, there are many who want to wish a happy “their” holiday. “Screw you, buddy, it’s my celebration and I want it to be yours, too.” So much for the goodwill towards men, huh?

Some think Ramadan fits in here somewhere. While It rotates through the year based on other concerns, it won’t be in December within the next six years. So let that one go, OK? Three’s bad enough, I’d say, and I offer you the latest in politically correct sentiments without sacrificing brevity: Merry ChristmaKwanUkkah!

* The asterisk in the title refers to the fact that this column has missed my self-imposed deadline of Sunday night. It so happened that I was in a Marriott Hotel in San Diego this past weekend and they saw fit to charge $12.95 for a day of internet access. (Sounds like a good topic for a future column.) My apologies for the tardiness.

Where's Mine?

Unemployment remains above 10% with little relief in sight. As a result, much is being debated regarding the wisdom of additional stimulus to “create” jobs. While I believe that some jobs in certain sectors are gone for good and while I believe that others are genuinely unemployed and unable to find gainful employment, I am left to wonder about the others who find it more convenient to be unemployed and collect their unemployment checks.

We’ve always had ne’er-do-wells that will continually seek sustenance from the public teat, but I’m afraid that another group is gaining numbers: those that delay employment so as to collect the maximum amount of unemployment benefits. I know a man whose wife was laid off and collecting her benefits. She had found another position and her husband told me that he had cautioned her against taking the job “too soon”. His “too soon” was defined as any point prior to exhausting all unemployment benefits she had coming to her. “After all, it’s her money”, he explained to me. “No, it’s our money”, I replied. After all, every employer and employee pays into the system in one way or another and the resulting pool of money provides a bridge for those that find themselves between jobs.

This feeling of entitlement to “our money” ends up working against our best interests, though, because, as the costs of unemployment go up, the payments made by companies goes up, and the price goes up for the end-user (you and me). How maximizing one’s unemployment payouts results in an overall increase in income is beyond me. “Well, if I didn’t do it, someone else would.” There’s an original rationale: yeah, I’m gaming the system, but so does everybody else. We’ve already debunked the “my money” excuse, too, so it comes down to the age-old getting something for nothing mindset.

But we’ve already figured out that we’re paying more in the long run, haven’t we? Ah, the long run: there’s the problem. We live in an era of myopia where long-term lies somewhere within the next day, or so. Screw the future, I’m getting mine now and I’ll let tomorrow take care of itself. There’s a 21st century mantra if I’ve ever heard one. I was “unemployed” for several months in late 1984/early 1985 (the airline that employed me filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy). However, I was still in the Air Force Reserve and turned to them so I might fulfill my financial obligations. Some of my ex-colleagues were also reservists, yet they were collecting unemployment benefits. “But your not unemployed”, I told one. “Well, they’ll never know and, after all, I’m due”, was the reply. A college educated professional, still serving in the military, and yet clinging to an over-used and under-justified mentality.

I’d like to think that are fewer of these folks than the career lollygaggers mentioned at the outset, but I’m not sure if the numbers would provide any solace. Not that there are any numbers to compare. I am sure that, if polled, less-than-forthright answers would be offered to simple questions like, “Are you delaying employment until your unemployment benefits are exhausted?”

Sorry, no solution to be found within this passage. The problem is not economic, societal, philosophical, ethnic, nor religious in nature. You see, ultimately, it comes down to the character of the individual. We cannot cajole or coerce someone into doing the right thing if they have no inner desire for the same thing. There was a time when nothing was worse than being on the dole. That time has passed and we are now faced with gimmickry and twisted logic to explain behavior that is something less than noble. Let’s all hope that this, too, shall pass.

Societal Immaturity

Each of us matures as we move through life. Some more than others and at varying chronological stages. It stands to reason, then, that our society matures, too. One look no further than our continued puritanical reaction to nudity. Europeans have matured well beyond the point where an exposed breast could turn heads, let alone stop traffic. Not so in the good old US of A. No siree, Bob.

It seems that we’ve become stalled in the early pubescent stage of maturity where everything titillates our imagination and creates a greater thirst for that which titillates. The latest example is that of Tiger Woods and his implied infidelity. Tiger has achieved great success in the golfing arena and, as a result, gained financial independence through his various affiliations with corporate concerns. That’s called making the best living possible. Something you and I and everyone else, from the top floor to the basement, hopes to accomplish.

The fact that Tiger has succeeded beyond most “normal” expectations in no way reduces his human foibles and, as a matter of fact, may exploit them as a feeling of invincibility pervades his everyday life. God knows we’ve seen other wealthy, influential men seemingly squander their public image through various trysts.

The perception of Tiger’s indiscretions is one thing, but the mob-like straining to see or read or hear the latest on his exploits is akin to teen-agers standing on tiptoes to get a better look through the neighbor’s bedroom window in the hopes of securing a glance at a wisp of lingerie. Aren’t there better things upon which to concentrate? (That’s a rhetorical question, you know.)

The economy. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Foreclosures. And on and on and on. Granted, dwelling on these burdens can wear one down (or out) and maybe Tiger’s personal life provides a respite from those more sobering issues. Except for the fact that reality television continues to burgeon with just about every other facet of voyeuristic media. No, we’re not taking a deep breath in preparation to return to the problem of the day. We’re looking for things that replace the need for serious thought; just like any other hormone driven adolescent.

Diversion is an important part of creativity and problem solving. Within reason, though. Now, one can consume an entire day with Google, YouTube, Dancing With the Stars, Survivor, Twitter, Facebook, and their ilk without spending one single moment thinking about the substantive issues lurking over the shoulder. This “disconnect” with true reality while wasting time in other realities leads to a society where a few folks decide for the majority with nary a second thought about public opinion. After all, the public no longer has an opinion, what with spending all day seeing if Tiger is going to make a statement.

I’m not suggesting that news tidbits concerning the latest celebrity indiscretion represent welcome relief from the daily grind. I am suggesting, though, that we need to lower its position on our list of priorities. Otherwise, we are left with the alternative of waking up one day and texting “WTF?”.

Who Goes There?

“KEEP OUT”

“AUTHORIZED PERSONNEL ONLY”

“DO NOT ENTER:THIS MEANS YOU!”

These are just a few examples of the various signs posted throughout this country in various locations with but one intent: to let you, the observer, know that proceeding further will have consequences. And, just to make sure, various layers of security maintain vigilance beyond these signs.

Unfortunately, there are those that do not take these signs at face value and strive to proceed further. Some are bent on mayhem while others are merely curious. Some are suspicious looking and others appear to be a next door neighbor. And between these extremes of intent and appearance is a countless combination that creates havoc within the security details assigned to ensure only the select few are allowed to proceed further.

Michaele and Tareq Salahi created quite the stir when, earlier this week, they attended the state dinner at the White House sans (apparently) the appropriate invitation or clearance. Their modus operandi is unknown to the public at large, but their motive seems to be fame and/or fortune. They are currently peddling rights to an exclusive interview.

OK, so where do we go from here? There is a major breach of security to investigate, for certain. The fact that these two did no harm is beside the point as they were definitely in a position to do so had they wished. The additional claim that they were screened for weapons also is irrelevant as a host of weaponry could have been found or fashioned within the perimeter. (This fact exists regardless of whether the potential assailant was properly invited and screened.) No, heads will roll on this one as well they should. The claims of “everything was under control” were meant to assuage a citizenry increasingly questioning the government's ability to maintain any control whatsoever. It is obvious that everything was not, indeed, under control.

To top it all off, the Salahi’s are threatened with prosecution. I’m curious of the charge, though: brass balls, perhaps? All they did was walk up to the front door like you and I could and fabricate some cock-and-bull story to see if it would pass muster. The fact that it did has more to do with the security lapse than with the fabricators, don’t you think? I think they’ve performed a public service in shedding light onto some glaring shortcomings regarding White House security. Good for them!

To a point, however. While there is nothing wrong in looking for a highest bidder to report their story, no news organization should spend one red cent on providing insight into the processes that culminated in their unauthorized entry. They are not famous so much as the oddity du jour and should be allowed to melt back into obscurity where they more than likely belong. Anything more only encourages others to perform in kind and, while that may elevate the aptitude of security forces, the overall effect is something we could well live without.

There will always be unauthorized personnel looking to infiltrate defenses for a myriad of reasons. Authorized personnel can learn much from these attempts, successful or not, but to hail the trespassers as celebrities is ludicrous for more than one reason. God knows we have enough reality wannabe’s out there. Why encourage others?

Charity Revisited

The Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays are upon us and one of the normal protocols is the plea for charitable donations so the hungry and needy can also enjoy the season. Charity refers to the giving of those in need. Could someone please define “in need” for me? Don’t get me wrong: I’m as generous as the next guy, but I can’t help but wonder if my “investment” is charity or tom-foolery.

There was a time when public assistance of any kind was considered to be an unenviable position. There was no pride while standing in a soup line. Times have changed, though. Traditional venues for those “in need” have become a haven for those “in want”. “It’s free so I’m getting mine while I can.” And there is no way to determine the eligibility of the poor souls lining up for the handouts.

I volunteered at a homeless holiday (Christmas) dinner almost twenty years ago when I was living in Southern California. It had always seemed like a good way to offer my services for a good cause. It provided food and a blanket for all and a present for each of the attending kids. My job was pouring drinks and bussing tables. I tried to engage each participant in a bit of idle chatter, but was surprised to find that most had nothing to say. Not even “thanks”. To make it worse, the entrance closed early because “repeat diners” were coming through the line a second time to obtain another blanket/present. Hardly a heart warming experience.

It is impossible to believe that things have gotten better in the ensuing years. As a matter of fact, I’d bet that most would believe the opposite. So how do we continue our charitable efforts while ensuring the validity of those asking for charity? We ask for something back in return for our assistance. What if the local charity offered food and shelter to only known individuals who were truly down on their luck, but striving to regain their footing on the financial ladder? No strangers and no familiar miscreants that have given nothing of themselves for themselves or their community. This isn’t mean or unemotional. It is merely requiring the quid for the quo. Yes, there will always be scofflaws and scalawags taking something they do not deserve, but standards such as this would go a long way in deterring such behavior.

I can no longer find it in my heart to donate food and clothing to unnamed individuals who may feel more entitled to my donations than appreciative. Nor should you. There is a homeless man who frequents the street outside of the Miami hotel I use on airline layovers. Over time, I have gotten to where we “greet” each other when I pass. I once asked him what he would do with the dollar I might give him. “Beer, cigarettes, whatever I need”, was his reply. The key word was “need”. He doesn’t need nicotine or alcohol. He wants them. While I admired his honesty, the response made it easy for me to refrain from donating to his cause.

I have taken other pleas to the heart while on city streets, but they include some extra steps on my part: rather than merely providing spare change, etc., I take my pan-handler into the nearest convenience store. I give the cashier the money I wish to donate and direct that all purchases are for food and non-alcoholic drink. What my homeless friend doesn’t spend goes to the cashier. A little more involved, but much more gratifying as I am now assured that my input will go towards needs rather than wants.

Those holding “will work for food” signs should be given some work to do. Tell the “applicant” to meet you at the same place tomorrow for some extraneous work around your house and see if he shows up. Sadly, most don’t. They want you to think they’re looking for work when, in fact, they’re looking for a free lunch. And it is up to us to know the difference.

There are many worthy causes out there, be they individuals or organizations. The problem lies in the fact that many others strive to prey upon the kindness of others to gain in ways undeserved. Heartless? Miserly? Conceited? Nope...just a guy looking for a return on my investment. The return I’m interested in is the betterment of that individual and of the society around us. While I may never gain individually, we will all gain should that street-person re-enter the work force or perform some other community service in return for the kindness shown. Isn’t it time to remove the sense of entitlement from a charitable gesture? I think so.

Cleaning House

That’s right: throw the bums out! Wait a minute...we’re a year from the elections. So wadyamean “cleaning house”? As we bemoan the plight of our government and those that are supposedly responsible for its operation, I ask you to take a look at something much closer to home, literally: your garage. Nearly every home built in the last fifty years or so has at least a one-car garage. Two car garages became common in the seventies and beyond while three car garages (or more) are believed to be a necessity in new homes of the 21^st century. Is that because each family owns multiple cars? One would think so, but I believe it’s because each family has more crap than can fit in their home and they need to put it someplace other than the middle of the bedroom floor. And one only drive down a typical neighborhood street to bear out my belief: multiple cars parked on the street or in the driveway of homes with at least a single garage door. And what’s behind that door, Monty? Why, various and sundry boxes and crates and machines and such.

No, garages have become every man’s answer to storage space that is normally rented to provide for the junk you don’t regularly use. But why pay to store it when you can keep it in your very own garage? Of course, you can’t park your car in the garage anymore and your vehicle will suffer the ravages of inclement weather, freezing cold, and/or sweltering heat. And your neighborhood will start looking less like the tree-lined piece of Americana you once envisioned, but rather a congested, quasi-used car lot. Face it: you’ve lost control of your home, much like the federal government has seemingly lost control of their domain. Maybe we should take care of our own houses before asking Washington to take care of theirs.

A short column this week, I know, but it’s a simple solution to a minor, yet unrelenting, scene. So c’mon, folks! Clean up your acts and get organized. Sell the items you no longer need or want (hey…how ‘bout a garage sale?!) or haul it off to the nearest U-Store-It or landfill. Any money you spend on storage will be offset by the increased value of your car that is now safer from the elements and, maybe, even your home as it sits quietly on that tree-lined street free of extraneous vehicles.

Memory Lane

Last night I attended the 40th reunion for my high school’s class of 1969. I’ve made most of the previous get-togethers and thought it well worth the effort in traveling from California to northern Illinois (in November, no less!). I’ll spare you the details, but I’d bet that the ingredients of this particular reunion are common to all other similar assemblies, including yours.

Out of a class of approximately 600, last night’s participation was far from a majority. Some regular attendees were forced to choose between competing agendas and others are historically absent. I am left to wonder why some are adamant in their refusal to attend or even acknowledge the event. Like it or not, we are each an aggregate of our experiences and the high school years, while sometimes trying and confusing, played a large role in who, what, and where we are today. Reunions offer the opportunity to pause and reflect upon those times and lead us to appreciate our successes while accepting our failures.

I have no family left in my “home town”, so I’ve spent the past two nights in a local hotel room. To come this far requires maximizing the opportunity to stroll down memory lane since I doubt I’ll return prior to the next reunion. I had breakfast with the first airline pilot I ever met. He was a substitute teacher and I was a high school junior with a newly found passion for flight. He has always been my hero and is now in failing health. Sharing a meal allowed me to think back to the things that became possible through my association with him.

A friend of mine passed away several years ago and this was my first chance to pay my respects. His wife took me out to his gravesite. The ensuing (and inevitable) tears helped me find closure and I am now able to put my heart to rest.

I also took time to drive by the homes I resided in during my youth. Each one offered differing memories and, each in their own way, a look back onto the path that ultimately led me to my present position. Missing the chance to relive those times would have been unseemly to me despite the mix of good times and bad each abode represented.

Last night was the main event. Forty years makes it harder to recognize some classmates without looking at their name-tag, but recognition gave way to recollection and good conversation. We’ve lost some classmates through the years and their passing clarifies the fact that tomorrow is guaranteed to no one. All the more reason to take advantage of similar soirees.

Some simplify a reunion into a process of reconnecting with the cohorts of yore and, while that is a big part, it also represents the opportunity to connect with those who were largely unknown to us. It amazes me how time erases the differences and allows for new friendships. To ignore the unfamiliar is to waste this opportunity.

None of us are unchanged by the passage of time. Physically, emotionally, and intellectually: we have slowly grown into the person we see in the mirror. Looking into our memory banks serves us well so we can better appreciate the present. And what better venue than the good old class reunion to activate those recollections? Some have attended a reunion to find the experience less than fulfilling. So be it. After all, not every graduating class in every high school can claim equal levels of esprit de corps. And far be it for me to urge those folks to keep up a fruitless exercise expecting different results. But if you’ve yet to show up at your class reunion of any numbered anniversary, I urge you to give it at least one good shot. You might be surprised. Forget about your weight or hair or what-have-you. Just go...

As for me, I probably will not stay in regular contact with the classmates I saw last night. Nor would you or most other folks. That’s not necessarily the point, is it? But I’ve made a few new connections and am renewed by reconnecting to the people and places that contributed to the story of my life.

We Need a New Drug

Huey Lewis was on to something, to be sure, but the “new drug” I’m referring to must be administered to the numerous senior managers within corporate America who have lost their moral compass. Their maladies are varied and I’ll list a few:

ADD (Accountability Deficit Disorder): Many executives find it difficult to admit to nefarious activities within their companies. “I do not recall” or “I wasn’t involved in those discussions” or “I was out of the loop” are common disclaimers. Do you think for one minute that one titan of industry, what with a monstrous ego, would allow an organization to wander, willy-nilly, into areas of skullduggery? I don’t. This disorder requires a prescription that brings about an admission of knowledge (and guilt) from those that steer the corporate vessel.

AIDS (Aversion to Information Dependability Syndrome): It is clear that many of those on the upper rungs of the corporate ladder have no desire to pass along reliable and accurate information to the worker bees toiling on their behalf. Rather, they employ a program of fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) so as to keep their minions in a constant state of agitation. This is seen as essential in gaining the most leverage and, without it, rebellion within the rank and file is more likely. This syndrome can be treated with medication that induces honesty when dealing with employees.

OCD Type 1 (Outsourcing Compulsion Disorder): This disorder causes executive teams to turn to foreign workers as a means of lowering costs and increasing profits. It is accompanied by a form of myopia which clouds the long range consequences of such behavior.

OCD Type 2 (Outrageous Compensation Disease): While this condition does not necessarily follow type 1 OCD, it is widely seen as an inevitable progression. The salaries of most CEO’s and their ilk are directly tied to recent profits and/or stock prices. The short term result of outsourcing is a dramatically improved bottom line. Naturally, the stock price soars, too. The myopia associated with type 1 begins to subside and the boss sees the prudence in taking his bag(s) of gold and hitting the road before the implosion begins.

(Are there more corporate diseases, disorders, and syndromes? Of course there are. As a matter of fact, feel free to come up with a few and pass them on to me. I’ll include your submissions in a future column. While I’ve tried to stay true to established medical acronyms, I see no need to similarly restrict your creativity.)

Capitalism is our preferred economic model, but it is in abysmal condition due to the absence of any morality playing a role in corporate decision-making. Spend a couple of hours with Michael Moore and watch his latest documentary on capitalism. Left or right, I believe you will leave the theater with a different opinion of our pillars of finance and business.

So come on, you pharmaceutical phenoms: find those new drugs that replace unbridled greed with a conscience that places value on all the components of a successful economy: the bosses, the workers, the investors, and the customers. Otherwise, we are left with nothing but the quagmire in which we currently find ourselves. We need a new drug...or a new model.

The Blame Game

Airline pilots have made the headlines this past week and for all the wrong reasons. As a near life-long aviator and a commercial airline pilot for 26 years (and still growing), I would be remiss to offer judgement on colleagues. I can, however, offer an opinion on the underlying causes for such lapses and how the airline pilot community is far from unique in this regard.

To refresh your memory, last Monday morning a Delta jet landed on a parallel taxiway rather than the runway at Atlanta’s Hartsfield Airport. The flight was an all-nighter (or red-eye, if you prefer) from Rio. Then, on Wednesday a Northwest jet overshot its destination of Minneapolis by a state before responding to Air Traffic controllers over Wisconsin and turning around. Far be it for me to render any kind of meaningful explanation for these lapses other than stating the obvious: these pilots were not paying proper attention to the task at hand.

Delta and Northwest Airlines, as separate entities, have both visited bankruptcy court and, as a result, the earning potential of all employees has been reduced. Retirement benefits, likewise, have suffered. Now these two airlines are merging and the seniority fallout among the pilot group could well have further negative consequences. Is it any wonder that these four pilots may have had other things on their minds? Many of my contemporaries have taken on other jobs to supplement what once was a comfortable life-style. No more three days “off” between trips: now, those days are filled with other activities to fill a financial void.

The airline piloting profession is not the only career field to experience such challenges. As a matter of fact, I’d say just about every worker-bee out there is filled with some degree of angst when thinking about income and job security. From doctors to lawyers to teachers to any other endeavor, we are being asked to do more with less and for less. I cannot imagine anyone doing high-quality work when faced with distractions and doubts about the future.

The tragedy lies in the fact that our four pilots may never again have access to their cockpit. This may come to pass in an attempt to paint them as aberrations so as to assuage the traveling public’s worry over an unsafe air travel industry. “The system’s fine, folks. It’s just these few bad apples that we need to weed out and then everything’ll be AOK.” This is tantamount to removing a few cancerous cells while ignoring the tumor responsible for their existence in the first place. In fact, they are nothing more than scapegoats to avoid a hard look at the underlying causes for such behavior.

Over-worked, under-paid, over-stressed workers from all sectors of the business world are “weeded out” under the same pretense while the underlying causes are ignored. This is equally bad for the provider of such service as well as the customer. Most of us want to do a good job and all of us want those that we hire to do a good job. But many outside forces are currently conspiring against such high quality results. Perhaps it is to be expected in these uncertain times, but to single out those that fall prey to such distractions as though there were no other mitigating circumstances is irresponsible and does nothing to prevent similar scenarios.

As some sort of stop-gap measure, many workplace environments have installed “fool-proof” safeguards to prevent such events. While this may provide a greater margin against error, there is nothing that is “damned-fool-proof” and it is damned foolish when those entrusted with varying degrees of responsibility allow themselves to be distracted. Not unusual or unheard of or even unthinkable. Just damned foolish. Only constant vigilance and the recognition of the root causes for such deviations can help prevent future blunders.

Full Speed Ahead...To the Past!

Rarely does one make progress while looking over a shoulder. In the case of improving our transportation options, though, I think it might provide the greatest potential for success. Allow me to explain:

Throughout the history of transportation in America as one mode became anachronistic, a newer and speedier mode was ready to replace it. The stagecoach gave way to the railroad and the trains gave way to busses (at least for shorter distances), and they both gave way to the airplane. But there is no new whiz-bang alternative to the airlines, is there? No particle beam transport a la Star Trek. Even the SST has been mothballed. We’re pretty much screwed. Or are we?

California’s Governor Schwarzenegger recently request 4.7 billion dollars in stimulus funds to apply towards a high speed rail system within the state. A step backwards, some might say, if we return to the rails as an answer to our transportation woes. Well, let’s look at a typical trip from Los Angeles to Sacramento. To make this trip by air, plan on arriving at the airport two hours before your flight so as to allow enough time for the poking and prodding of the TSA after standing in a lengthy line leading up to the indignity. The travel time is roughly one hour and fifteen minutes unless weather or other traffic interferes with the schedule. And we all know that either (or both) is a regular occurrence. Now we’re up to at least three hours and fifteen minutes, not including travel to and from our airports. The high speed rail travel time? Two hours seventeen minutes. And the stations will more than likely be closer to our final destination than the airport so the time savings increase yet again.

Can there be any rational argument against investing in this technology? Maybe, from short haul airlines who stand to lose major business to this quick and economical alternative, but that’s economical...not rational. Much of the infrastructure is already in place. Right-of-way problems are now relatively easy to solve, what with the lower values in real estate. No more sky-high prices for the land required to lay out our rails. Give them what the property was worth a year ago and watch them take the offer without a second thought. Other hardware and software technology required for these projects will create the need for companies to provide the necessary materials. Jobs, in other words. The best thing of all is that we’ll be making something. You know: manufacturing. That’s what we did before we made money by selling paper.

Look at virtually any state and the opportunities for high speed rail service abound. (Better yet, Google “high speed rail maps” and take a look at what is being envisioned.) Eventually, these networks connect with other areas to form a national high speed rail system second to none. Driving even becomes a secondary option in certain cases.

Yes, folks, the answer to our transportation quandary lies in the past, albeit with improvements. Climb aboard, literally and figuratively: let’s all go back to the future!

Shaken, Not Stirred

Sorry, but you won’t find martini recipes here. No, I’m referring to the assignment given folks elected to an office in the hopes of “shaking things up”. Mayors, governors, presidents: it matters not because, in each case, we look for one person to turn the related ship of state in a new direction. Others, as my friend, Sam, (who will appear in a later example), are brought into a public bureaucracy (school board or some like commission) with the same mandate: shake things up and get this body moving in the right direction. That’s the idea, anyway.

Unfortunately, the “shaking up” refers to the status quo and many pasts, presents, and futures depend on the continuation of things as they are. Jesse Ventura is a good example of what I’m trying to explain. The electorate of Minnesota apparently became disenchanted with the same old politicians doing the same old thing so they gave a retired wrestler the chance to shake things up. And Jesse tried, by god, but with little success. You see, the true power of any state lies in the Legislature. And that body is made up of career politicians. Now, why in the world would this particular group in Minnesota be interested in allowing an outsider to succeed? Wouldn’t that send a message claiming that just about anybody can do this job? And, if so, what happens to the future prospects of those career politicos hoping to one day reside in the Governor’s Mansion themselves? With these thoughts in mind, is it any wonder that Jesse served only one term? His failure was a higher priority than the citizenry of Minnesota, plain and simple.

Arnold Schwarzenegger is another prime example. Granted, he’s not the first movie star to run the Golden State, but he’s the latest and, in the years since Ronald Reagan’s administration, much has changed. Gridlock trumps progress if the other side of the aisle can claim a victory and California’s legislative bodies have stymied progress on virtually all fronts as the state continues to flirt with economic failure. Arnold gets the credit if they come through with a winning solution just as he gets the blame for their failures. And the blame is more palatable when considering the political fallout of opening future elections up to every common man and woman interested in running.

And finally, we get to President Obama. “Change we can believe in” was the message that got him elected, but, once again, many overriding agendas are best served by thwarting such change. It seems that the Republican Party is currently more interested in blocking anything on the premise that it won’t succeed. But should it succeed, their near-term hopes for regaining control of the Congress or White House are dashed. Once again, allowing your opponent to succeed is just not an option.

I wish it were that simple to get things moving in another direction, but ships of state are behemoths that require much coordination and bipartisanship to create even a few degrees of heading change. And, as I’ve tried to illustrate, many are keenly aware that change may well create a negative change in their own goals and finances.

Sam, whom I mentioned above, has been an educator for most of his adult life. In trying to put students first, he has sometimes been caught cross-wise with principals and school boards from time to time. Recently, he was offered a position in a school district to “shake things up”. Well, things were fine until the school board realized that they, too, would experience some shaking and that was something in which they clearly had no desire to participate. “Sam”, they said. “We meant to say that you should shake that other stuff up...not our stuff!” Needless to say, Sam’s contract was not renewed. So much for the shaking.

True to the 21st century, we seem to pin our hopes for the future on one person whose words or deeds rekindle the hope for a better tomorrow. Unless that person is the CEO (or Emperor), I’m afraid that other forces will continue to conspire against any meaningful progress. Does that mean we give up? Hell no, but it should give us a greater insight to the job at hand and perhaps be more patient before we turn to find yet another savior. And one final thought: rarely does “change” look like the “change” we envisioned when we called for it in the first place. Some will lose, but if many more gain then society, as a whole, is all the better for it.

Take Your Pick

Let’s try something different this week: rather than dwell on one subject, how about touching on a few salient topics from the headlines? In perusing today’s (October 3) Sacramento Bee, several things caught my eye:

Chicago loses Olympic bid: I’m surprised that Chicagoans weren’t the ones celebrating in the streets while those “lucky” Brazilians were wishing they were more careful in their wishes. Now, I’m a sports fan, but when I hear the Olympics is coming to town, I make plans to be somewhere else. Just like most everyone else. Promises of profit and opportunity abound and, depending on how you define “profit” and “opportunity”, the promises may be valid to varying degrees. Google “(un)profitable olympic games”. The top of the list will take you to an article from tourism review.com and I think you’ll be interested in the findings. (I’d link it for you, but it opens as a downloaded PDF. Sorry.) One would think that Chicago could put the same money to work in different ways to revitalize the economic maelstrom that now racks its citizens.

And Obama is getting heat from the conservative media types for going to Denmark when there are so many more important things to decide and discuss. (Of course, the conservative media would rather talk and discuss Obama’s trip to Denmark.) Who knows: maybe it was all show and, in the cloak room, he begged the IOC to give the games to those lucky bastards down south! I guess we’ll never know...

David Letterman: OK, here’s a guy who works with women and, over time, has found himself in a personal liaison with some. Who hasn’t? Hell, we’re all working about fifteen hours a day: if you can’t get lucky at work, you’re in deep trouble. True, Dave was in a long-term relationship with his future wife, but that’s between the two of them. The harassment angle is overplayed because no one has cried “Foul” and if someone comes forward now it is only because visions of fame and wealth are dancing in her head. We’ve all shared private time with co-workers (some above us on the career ladder and some below) with little or no fallout. Let’s move on and leave Dave alone.

Roman Polanski: Jesus, is this still going on? Let’s see, he rapes a 13 year old girl, leaves the country, promises to pay her a large sum in a civil suit (which he apparently never does), and now gets arrested to face the original charges. (Am I close?) Well, hell yes, he’s guilty. And of more than one thing and he should face the music regardless of elapsed time or his wonderful career as a film-maker. This has to do with taking advantage of a teenager and refusing to be held accountable. Enough said...

Paul Krugman: Paul writes for the New York Times and the Bee carries his column a couple of days a week. He won a Nobel Prize for economics last year and I find his point of view interesting, if not intriguing. His piece today is titled, “As difficult as it is to sell, spending is what U.S. must do” and it delves into how the government is doing too little to get the economy turned around. Yes, too little. Damn the deficit, full spending ahead! And you know what? I believe him. Picture a normal day in your nice, lovely home when, all of a sudden, a ray of sunshine (or drop of rain) intrudes from a space where intrusion is normally not allowed. That’s right, buddy: time for a new roof. But how can you afford it in these tough economic times? A blue tarp is cheaper and almost as good, isn’t it? Well, we all know the blue tarp ploy will only delay the inevitable and, in the meantime, more and more of your home is subjected to nature’s forces. At the end of the day, you’ve saved nothing and, more than likely, will end up spending much more than you would have in the first place.

Why would our national house be any different? Our financial roof is a mess and we’re trying to jury-rig a solution that will only come back to bite us on our collective backside. We do it all the time with our possessions when money is tight and what happens? We’re generally the worse off for it somewhere down the road. So I’m with Paul on this one. There’s no difference between your roof and our economy: they are both worthy of investment for long term security.

Not bad for one day’s news, huh? Maybe there’s still hope for the newspaper industry, after all.

Reverse Reaganomics

Ronald Reagan’s approach to governing still resonates with many who like the idea of smaller government, lower taxes, and “trickle down” economics. For those of you too young to remember, trickle down refers to the scenario where individuals and companies make a boatload of money and, in spending it, create opportunities and riches for those farther down the economic food chain. “Trickle” is the key word because a majority of the dollars seemed to stay in the pockets of those occupying the higher rungs of life’s ladder. Nevertheless, it still has support.

Unfortunately, the converse is also true: as money becomes scarcer at the top, less (or little at all) flows down to the lower reaches. We all know what does regularly flow downhill, though, don’t we and we’re getting more than a small taste of it as it “trickles” past. Within the upper echelons of the political and corporate worlds, much stays the same, but the trickling down of benefits has slowed to a barely perceptible degree. I’m not a physicist or an economist, but I’m surprised that such an outrage exists at such an understandable, and foreseeable, situation.

The slowing of the money train initially became obvious to me as Hurricane Katrina slammed into the city of New Orleans. The media reported that no agency seemed to be well prepared to deal with the aftermath. Perhaps “they” were very well prepared to allow other agencies to step in and foot a bill that “they” could not pay. The city was more or less broke and I find the idea that they simply waited for the state of Louisiana to come to their rescue more than plausible. Unfortunately, the state was no better off, financially, so deferred to FEMA. And we all know how FEMA performed. A combination of limited resources and bureaucratic obstacles created a debacle that continues to this day.

The latest example seems to be the extreme flooding in Atlanta and the surrounding areas. Once again, media reports show city officials hoping the state of Georgia will come to their rescue and state officials are turning to Washington for federal dollars. And, once again, we all know that the federal coffers have little to provide.

As help from Washington is reduced, states are forced to deal with their own problems, but their financial problems are no less severe. As the states turn to counties and cities for help by reducing the flow of money to those smaller entities, the supervisors and mayors look for help and find there is nothing lower (except the general population, of course). Each of us enjoys daily conveniences provided by each of these political players, but as the money slows to that trickle, those conveniences begin to disappear. Library hours are curtailed. Public swimming pools, parks, and the like are closed. Public universities reduce their enrollment numbers due to reduced faculty. Things we once took for granted no longer are there for the asking.

The business world is not much different as executive pay remains high so as to “attract and retain the brightest and best”. The worker bees, however, continue to struggle making ends meet as the cost of living goes up while the reward from working remains the same.

Let’s break this down to the family level. We’ll assume you have kids and they receive an allowance. They enjoy other benefits that seem to automatically flow from the fact that they live under your roof. Now you lose your job. The same trickle down that created a boon for your family during the good times is now morphed into their bane. The allowances decrease or disappear. Cable, cell phone, and the other accoutrements of the good life become, instead, luxuries that may not survive the scrutiny of a revised budget reflecting less discretionary income.

Face it folks: everybody’s broke. It isn’t limited to your family. Yes, your taxes are down because your income is down and/or your house value is drastically lower. So your contribution to the local, state, and federal cash boxes is lower. Why would you expect to maintain the same level of service from them when your own family can no longer expect the same level of service from you? The only way to find that money, short term, at least, is to raise taxes and that idea meets with instant outcry.

Our elected leaders claim to pay for everything by reducing (or eliminating) fraud, waste, and abuse. Nice theory, but I see it as more smoke than substance. First of all, nothing is 100% efficient, so you can scratch off waste as it is a by-product of effort. Fraud and abuse usually go hand-in-hand and so long as people are involved with any process, there will be those that take advantage.

It strikes me funny that, while many rant and rave about keeping government out of their medical affairs as we try to reform healthcare, some of the same folks rant and rave as services are reduced from the same government they claim to loathe. Which way is it? (No, you cannot have it both ways.)

Our economic way of life is changing in significant and perhaps irreversible ways and our consumer driven economy may well be a thing of the past. What will replace it? That’s anyone’s guess, but make no mistake: trickle down economics, just like most everything else, isn’t always a good thing.

BFF

There is no way anyone would confuse me with a cutting edge texter, but some of the more common abbreviations have made it down to my level. So BFF, or Best Friend Forever, is not completely foreign to me. What is foreign, however, is how the idea of best friends forever has permeated the world of commerce and how it has affected our buying decisions.

God only knows how hard it is to maintain any friendship “forever”, but those we do business with like to play on this BFF angle to instill a feeling of loyalty in our minds. Banks may well be the most proficient at this in light of their constant reminders of being in the neighborhood and always there when you need them. Airlines try for the BFF aura by awarding frequent flier miles and rewarding certain levels of participation with higher levels of attention. Kinda makes you feel warm and fuzzy, doesn’t it? But friendship is a two-way street and a closer look at the relationships claiming BFF status in the business world are anything but two-way.

I have a friend, Dave, who has maintained a long term relationship with the bank in his small, rural town. During this relationship, he has, from time to time, applied for an unsecured loan and has never been denied. And for good reason, since he has never failed in repaying the entire loan in a timely manner. Any business would consider him a good customer. Not any more, though. Dave’s most recent request for an unsecured loan (in an amount far shy of past requests) was denied. You see, the small town bank is now part of a larger group that passes judgment based only on numbers. No history, no relationship, no BFF. Sorry, Dave. Can’t help you. (He’s looking for a new bank, BTW.)

This tale got me thinking about our supposed long, close, mutually beneficial relationship we have with commercial enterprises whom we choose to frequent. The success of these BFF’s depends on one thing only: the continued flow of money from our pockets to their coffers. Once that stops, look out. No more BFF’s, my friends. Some companies dwell on their concern for your welfare while others “buy” your loyalty with perks that are dependent on your continued patronage.

Drug dealers aren’t much different, you know: they offer freebies until you’re hooked. Then the prices start going up. Prostitutes are famous for telling their clients what they want to hear and showering them with love and affection. For a price. Once the money train stops, so, too, does the affection. Am I likening corporate America to a bunch of drug dealers and hookers? I’ll leave that for you to decipher.

Try walking into your bank (assuming you are BFF’s) and asking to use their restroom. Or, perhaps, a cup of coffee. Something that a bank does not ordinarily supply, but something one friend would be glad to provide for another. Or walk up to the airline counter and ask for a meal voucher because you’ve had a bad day, the flights are late, and you’re hungry. After all, you’re a plutonium level flier and a BFF according to the literature they regularly send you. Simple experiments like these will readily separate the true BFF’s from the impostors.

It’s sad to say, but most of our commercial BFF’s out there are something far less loyal (or friendly). They hope that we’ll buy into their spiel, though, because, if we do, we’ll be CF’s (Customers Forever). Some businesses out there truly strive to meet our needs and expectations and will go the extra mile to maintain their business relationship with us. Others, unfortunately, are concerned only with creating the façade of loyalty and will turn their corporate backs should that prove to be in their best interest. It’s up to us to identify our true BFF’s out there in the marketplace and reward them with our repeat business. And for those that might think every business has a legitimate concern for the welfare of its customers: LOL!

Polarization

Some might think that I’m referring to the opposite of global warming. Sorry to disappoint, but I’m thinking of something far more lethal and much quicker: the disappearance of the middle i.e. movement towards either pole. The two types of polarization I’d like to dwell on today are economic and political.

Most of us, in describing ourselves, like to say we’re “middle class”, middle of the road”, “average”, or some such term that implies a position far from either extreme. However, should you take a look at the distribution of financial wealth, you’d be hard pressed to lay any claim to the middle of anything economical. Professor G. William Domhoff, a Sociologist at UC Santa Cruz, published an article in September 205 and updated it in May of this year (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html). In the article, he compares financial wealth with net worth. The differences are subtle and complicated for a simpleton like me, but the bottom line is that financial wealth measures the control of income producing assets (stocks, bonds, business equity, etc.) and, as such, the “ownership” of America. And guess what? You ain’t in the middle, my friend: 42% of the financial wealth is controlled by the top 1% of households. And the next 27% of the financial wealth is controlled by the next 4% of households. So, 67% of this country’s financial wealth is controlled by the top 5% of households.

The middle class is melting away at an almost indiscernible rate, just like the ice caps and with equally serious side-effects. Those of us that still believe we’re in the middle of the financial world have used various forms of credit to maintain that façade and that has led to the economic malaise where we now find ourselves. How could this have happened and what can we do about it?

History shows us that the middle class originally thrived under the stewardship of labor unions. Until that time, the dependence on the generosity of management pretty much dictated the quality of life and the quantity of pay. And we all know that the generosity in question was in short supply as sweat shops and the like were the norm. The organization of labor, however, created a strong voice and coerced the industrial magnates into recognizing and rewarding the contributions of the worker bees.

Once this middle class was well established, the need for a union became lost on the younger, newer workers and, in the last several decades, union membership has dramatically declined. Once again, career rewards are predicated upon the generosity of higher-ups and, once again, labor has been left out when it comes to collecting those rewards.

There is no reason to believe that this state of affairs will turn around until the same effort is expended to create new labor organizations and reinforce existing ones. Only then, can we hope for a thriving middle class that fuels the consumerism that has historically provided the power of our economy. While that may take some degree of civil disobedience, it remains to be seen whether the workforce-at-large is up to the challenge.

The political middle is disappearing, too. Ideologues on the right are steadfastly against anything promoted by the present administration and the left, always seeking compromise and bipartisanship, is stalled with in-fighting and everlasting debate. (They say that Democrats fall in love while Republicans fall in line and such a sentiment is readily seen today.) Politicians seem to be more interested in personal agendas than what is good for America and, while this may be nothing new, it has reached previously unknown heights. Add to this mix a public that is more interested in sound bites and scandal and a news media more interested in ratings and it is not hard to see how we got to this point.

Last week, a new standard was set as the President was heckled in his address to a joint session of Congress. And as I write this, thousands are marching in Washington D.C. in opposition to the administration as much, if not more, as the current health care proposals. No middle ground, no serious debate, no progress.

It’s time that the Democrats take a page from the Republican play book and fall in line. The party made sweeping gains in the fall elections of 2008 and needs to start swaggering a bit. Hell, even our last president knew how to play that game with his “you’re either with us or against us” mantra. Bipartisanship? Nice theory, but it doesn’t seem to be working. I’d bet that the right would be more inclined to come along if they were faced with the prospect of being left behind. That possibility is remote, though, so long as the left continues its effort to woo, coddle, and cajole. Isn’t it time for a poke in the ribs or a kick in the ass?

And what about the silent, thinking types that haven’t taken to the streets? What with last fall’s network in support of candidate Obama, couldn’t we find some uninsured souls within staunch Republican districts to make their feelings known? They’re out there. You just don’t see ‘em on the “news” because they’re just not flashy enough, if they’re there at all.

The political solution to a vanishing middle may well be pure partisanship, should the votes make it possible. The threat of being left out of the game is a sure fire motivational tool guaranteed to bring about a more flexible point of view from would-be obstructionists.

The pendulums will always swing from one side to the other and, with time, it is thought that the extremes will lessen as everything shifts more to the middle. Well, I don’t think we can rely on that formula today and the irony lies in the fact that, as the middle slowly fades away, those still stuck “in the middle” suffer the most. In our own way, we must each try to slow down the momentum that is taking us away from that “happy medium”. Our economic and political well being demand it.

Shades of Gray

Jaycee Lee Dugard was kidnapped some 18-odd years ago. Her recent reunion with her family and the ensuing details of her captivity have re-ignited calls for “one strike and you’re out” for those convicted of sexual crimes of any type. This reaction is normal, can be expected, and is completely visceral. From the gut, in other words. Other groups rely on visceral reactions: lynch mobs, vigilantes, and similar self-appointed defenders of society. My question today is whether this is the type of society and justice we now seek to deal with these problems.

Every day, felons are released from prison on an unsuspecting public and many of them wind up as repeat offenders. And the more heinous the crime, the louder the hue and cry for throwing away the key. Stand in a room and spread your arms as wide as possible from left to right. Let’s call the left hand “angelic” and the right “satanic”. (I know, it should be the other way around, but I’m left handed, so give me a break.) Now, no one would argue that those resting on the right hand should rot in prison or, perhaps, be afforded a speedier exit from this world via a syringe. And those on the left hand are saints. Simple, huh?

Now, bring your hands together a bit, say to a 45 degree angle. The halos of the saints are now a bit tarnished while the true devils start to take on some redeeming qualities. OK, let’s bring our hands to within one foot of each other. The differences start to meld with the similarities and it is becoming increasingly difficult to separate the good from the bad. It becomes a matter of which criteria we use to make such a decision and it is far from the clear cut position from whence we started.

It’s time to introduce the cerebral component into our little experiment. The gut feeling wanes as our hands move closer together and the mind is now asked to render a more judicious verdict. Is this approach fool proof? Far from it. Will it prevent further dastardly deeds? Hopefully, but there is no way to predict success.

Welcome to today’s legal system. A closely woven fabric, but not so much so that unintended consequences cannot slip through the gaps. And when they do, depending on the level of their egregiousness, our collective gut once again roars for something more perfect, more black and white so we can sleep well knowing such aberrations will not recur.

Sorry, folks, but our lives revolve in a world of grays. Few saints or satans any more as we are continually asked to pick the lesser of two evils. So, while it’s easy to demand perfection, it is far more difficult to deliver in this imperfect world. Accordingly, the mind must overrule the gut in situations like this and realize that there’s only so much one can do and, when things like this happen, strive to minimize future failures of the same kind. Let’s call it maturity because that’s exactly what it is. Maturity is what reins in the visceral before it manifests itself into action while allowing the cerebral to take charge and keep things in perspective.

Should you be outraged at the failings within the system that allowed Phillip Garrido to escape notice for 18 years? Hell, yes! But to allow that outrage to take a supposed logical next step to locking every sexual offender up for life serves no real purpose save soothing the gut. Our attempt to win the war on drugs by locking up every two-bit, penny ante drug hustler or user has met with little or no success. There is no reason to believe a similar course with sexual predators (as a group) would fare any better. I know, it’s frustrating living in the world of gray. But most of us are a combination of good, bad, and ugly and all we can hope for is winning more than we lose.

Uniformity

Believe it or not and, like it or not, most of us wear a uniform of some sort every time we go to work. Hard to fathom? Well, the executive’s uniform consists of the suit and tie (or counterpart from the lady’s department). Hence, the appropriate moniker “suits”. And underlings all don, pin, or tie some accoutrement to themselves so as to be identified as employees.

But in this age of individualism, I find that the once readily identifiable uniform is slowly disappearing from the workplace. And I find this to be a shame. “Why?”, you ask. “What I wear has nothing to do with how I do my job, so what difference does it make?”

Well, for one thing, your uniform separates you from all the other schmucks in the place and tells me, at a glance, that you’re the one I need should I have a question or problem. I find myself asking people if they work there simply because they have no name-tag, vest, or other obvious indication of employ. C’mon, make it easy on us schmucks trying to spend some money in your store. Larger companies differentiate between employee groups through the wearing of different uniforms and this makes it easier for everyone while providing a sense of esprit de corps.

There are some positions where a uniform implies authority or job description while other uniforms are necessary for workplace cleanliness and the like. Others, still, pay homage to those that preceded and contributed to the gains currently enjoyed. Regardless, whatever uniform is mandated by your employer, it is a safe bet that you knew about it from the first day your were hired. And, on that first day, I’d bet you would have been happy to wear pink tights and spike heels if that helped sealed the deal. That was then, though, and this is now. You’re disgruntled, disheartened, disenchanted, and any other dis- you want to throw in. Don’t forget the under-’s, either: underpaid, under-appreciated, and so forth.

There’s a word for these explanations: crap! Pure, unadulterated crap. Face it: you just don’t care about the job or yourself as much as you once did. So why try any harder than you have to and, hey, the boss hasn’t said anything, so what’s the prob? The “prob” is many faceted. First of all, how about having the professionalism in wearing your prescribed “uniform”. That would be called self respect, too. Absent that, how about having a modicum of respect for your co-workers that wear their uniforms as they work at your side? I know, a tall order. Well, how about wearing your uniform because, if you don’t, your boss’ll rip you a new one. Oh yeah, not many bosses like that anymore, are there?

So here we are with few employees giving a rat’s ass and fewer supervisors willing to be unpopular in requiring something more than the very least. Can anyone be surprised if the workplace becomes something less than efficient, professional, or productive?

The airline pilot profession is no different in regards to uniforms. The old standard consisted of a suit coat with stripes, wings on the chest, and a hat. Today, some airlines have done away with the hat, altogether, and substituted the coats with leather jackets. Some airline pilots no longer wear ties, in accordance with their company regulations. In my particular case, pilots are afforded the option of coats or, in the summer, no coat at all. The hat and wings, though, are still considered required accessories. Some of my fellow employees seem to regard those two items as options, too, and the resulting scene is one of almost carnival-like proportions. A hodge-podge of supposedly professional aviators looking more like teen-age wannabe’s. Some claim that they are projecting a symbol of unhappiness with the decisions of management. Others say that when they are paid more, they’ll dress better. I wonder why they expect to be paid more when they don’t look like they deserve their current rates of pay. I’m not crazy about my management team, either, but I feel a responsibility to myself and my profession to look as good as I can when I come to work. Am I perfect? Hell, no, but in attempting to maintain a high standard, it seems that I come closer than many of my colleagues.

Since I entered the workforce some 41 years ago, I’ve worn some sort of item that could be called, in varying degrees, a uniform. I’ve not always enjoyed it nor have I always understood why I was asked to wear it. But I wore it because, if for no other reason, I was expected to. I always had the choice of quitting, as others do, but deemed the requirement a small demand in return for the compensation I received.

It’s about many things: professionalism, regulation, customer recognition, and respect. And it’s about time...