To the Dogs

“To the Dogs” is a phrase usually reserved to describe a continually eroding situation. The economy is going to the dogs as is that abandoned building across the street. Today, however, I use the phrase as a salute to our canine companions.

Of all the domesticated critters, the dog occupies the highest rung on the ladder of loyalty. And for good reason. Beat a dog, make a dog sleep in the cold and wet, expect unreasonable behaviors: it matters not for the tail continues to wag in a never-ending display of unconditional love.

Dogs provide an opportunity for each of us to grow as humans if only we observe and adapt our ways to more closely mirror theirs. Take joy in a walk with a friend. Discover the pleasure of an afternoon nap. Live in the moment. Forget your ego. I’ll grant you that some of these are not possible in a hectic, 24/7 schedule. It’s just as good, perhaps, to keep the ideas in the back of our minds and take advantage of one when the opportunity arises.

Some are now thinking, “Yeah, well you haven’t had the experience that I’ve had with a dog.” Yes, many have been bitten (hopefully no more than once to at least prove the old adage). Think of other scenarios that have turned out badly. I’d say that many of them involve another person. Have you similarly shunned the human race? I doubt it, but cannot argue that some dogs pose a significant obstacle to the kind of relationship I describe. Not impossible, though.

You see, dogs are easier to rehabilitate. One need look no further than those associated with Michael Vick’s dog fighting operation. These were canines trained to kill another of their kind yet all 49 are now in foster homes with other dogs and, in some cases, children. Exceptional therapists? I’d be more inclined to point to an exceptional attitude and underlying desire to please within the patient.

No, dogs are there through thick and thin. Stop feeding them and they’ll sit at your door waiting for a scrap or a pat of some kind. Dogs will meet your gaze and return it with some sort of comprehension and the assurance that they will always remain true. Dogs will interrupt their nap to sit at your side. They revel in your happiness and sit quietly to comfort you in times of sadness.

I’ve had the pleasure of a dog’s company for over half of my life and am presently surrounded by three. Each has a different personality, but they all share the same devotion found lacking in our human world. No hidden agenda or secret goal. A simple, unadulterated admiration. If only we could attain such an altruistic height.

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes and each breed has unique traits. I’d say that is to provide a plethora of choices for would-be owners. Rescue operations even place dogs in a home on a trial basis to ensure a good fit. Not even allergies can eliminate a dog from your life as some breeds are hypoallergenic.

 I know, lifestyle and other such considerations are used to rationalize the absence of a canine from any household. There’s always a way. We can even skirt public laws by designating our dogs as “assistance” or “therapy” animals thus allowing access to otherwise off-limits venues. (I’m thinking of getting an assistance coat for one of my guys and telling folks I’m allergic to B.S. Soon afterward I can say, “Oops, he’s alerting me that I’m near B.S. and I must excuse myself!”)

The only thing a dog asks in return for undivided attention and unquestionable loyalty is to be spared from the pain of disease or old age. It seems that few dogs die naturally. They find a way to hang on one more day. I’d like to think it is out of allegiance to their human companions. Regardless, it falls to us all too often to make the final decision and bring a magnificent life to a peaceful end. It is never easy and subsequent passings are no easier, but it is the most noble thing we can do for our beloved canines.

Trust me: a relationship with a good dog cannot be duplicated in any other relationship with any other living thing. And within even the most cantankerous or mistreated canine is a “good dog”. So raise your glass and join me in a toast: To the dogs!

Baby, It's Cold Outside!

We are fully into the season where those that debunk any and all global warming theories cry, “Al Gore, where are you?” Record low temperatures or massive blizzards bring out the nay-sayers every winter claiming proof positive that global warming is a hoax.

Allow me a moment to digress and refresh the memories of these ill-informed folks: global warming does not necessarily coincide with higher temperatures. Rather, the term is used to illustrate a shift in weather patterns brought on by a higher than normal temperature of our planet. The severity of weather patterns is the hallmark of this condition, not the actual outside temperature. As such, record highs are also recorded, but we don’t hear Al Gore’s name invoked when talking about them, do we?

OK, back to the matter at hand. Nature has thrown much at the world over the past year: earthquakes, blizzards, floods, volcanoes, record setting hot and cold spells, you name it. For an in-depth look at some of these, drop by this Yahoo News link. I realize, by the way, that earthquakes and eruptions are not necessarily tied to the global warming scenario, but they have nevertheless added to the meteorological magnitudes reached over the past twelve months.

I do not claim to have an answer that would solve our global warming concerns save those that have already been proposed. But the fact that many still refuse to accept the premise as viable is beyond me. Most are highly educated people that must be placing a higher priority on politics and cash flow than the general well-being of our planet. This is nothing new, you know. We generally refer to such behavior as “kicking the can down the road”. After all, today’s officials will be long gone before the chickens come home to roost in measurable numbers, so why rock the boat? Let someone else handle it. We’ve seen similar mentalities in recent financial fiascos. Others argue that climate change is nothing new and they’re absolutely correct. I doubt, however, that mankind would take kindly to a new ice age or eternal tropical storms.

So, to you believers out there: don’t let anyone get away with the “where’s AL Gore now that we’re freezing to death?” ploy. It is an argument firmly rooted in ignorance and deserves a rebuttal at the earliest opportunity. Although I doubt a head-in-the-sand denier would be dropping by for a dose of my editorial elixir, just in case one stumbles in: come on...you know that, on some level, society’s way of life is screwing up the ecological balance that we depend upon for life, comfort, and sustainability. At least own up to the fact regardless of any changes you may make in your day to day lifestyle.

They say that admitting the problem is the biggest step to solving it. Let’s all hope that society can look itself in the mirror, accept the fact of a warmer globe, and get to the business of making our carbon footprints a bit smaller. And soon.

Laws R Us

A good friend and I were chatting the other day and commiserating over how we are pretty much burned out over Christmas well before the holiday comes around. Yuletide shopping displays can be seen shortly after Halloween, radio stations start playing carols the day after Thanksgiving, and some folks leave their Christmas lights up all year round. My friend said, “There oughta be a law!” and we started thinking of other insanities that should be banned: marriage before thirty, for instance, or having children without passing a test, and so forth.

Upon further reflection, though, it occurred to me that the last thing we need is more laws. After all, a law is passed, unintended consequences arise, and another law is passed to correct the deficiencies of the first. And so on and so on. The next thing we know, our legislative acts represent a burdensome and intrusive government. Sound familiar?

There are many facets of our society that require regulation from the feds. Others can be handled by governors or mayors. Many are warranted as they protect innocent members of society from those bent on mayhem. Others as a deterrent for those possessing something less than a full deck engaging in foolish behavior. But a seemingly overwhelming number are created simply because we, the people, want someone else to take care of things. Helmet laws, child safety seat laws, seat belt laws, cell phones while driving laws, no smoking laws. The list is long and sure to grow longer.

Wouldn’t it be better if we, the people, stepped up to the plate and took some responsibility for ourselves, our children, and those around us? On some level, we all realize the benefits from using seat belts or child seats. We accept the fact that second hand smoke is something less than healthy and texting while driving leads to traffic mishaps. Why, then, do we need a law?

I know: the “other guy” who never seems to behave in a manner deemed appropriate. This opinion is the ultimate in selfishness. If the other guy is getting away with something ill-advised, then why shouldn’t I be able to do the same? Yeah, I know it’s unsafe, but he’s doing it. This “why not me” attitude leads to many laws that we could do without if only we took some personal responsibility for our actions.

That’s a tall order these days, though, isn’t it? Who’s got time for that? It’s far easier to pass a law and then rely on our constabularies to deal with the scofflaws while we get back to the serious business of reality TV and the like. Where does it end? Or, better yet, does it ever end?

Will we have a law mandating the beginning of the Christmas season? Or outlawing marriage until an age where hormones don’t trump reason? Or issuing childbirth licenses? Probably not. Or at least I hope not. Rather, I’d hope for a society that ignores Christmas marketing until after the Thanksgiving indigestion has subsided. Or delaying a marriage until all factors have been considered. Or accepting the fact that the desire to have a child is not the same as the means. I think it’s called accountability and we’d go a long way to minimizing new legislation if we just took the time to do the right thing instead of the easy one.

The End of the Stone Age

Much has been written and spoken about the recent WikiLeaks release of “sensitive” diplomatic material. I have no interest in covering ground that has already been plowed so will offer thoughts that, so far as I know, have gone unexplored.

It seems that the bulk of this latest “leak” consists of personal opinions held by U.S. diplomats regarding other diplomats from other countries around the world. I am shocked that others are shocked. Most of us hold two opinions of folks: the public, politically correct one, and the personal, more earthy one. We generally rely on the latter only when employing the spoken word to avoid the embarrassment of having a written opinion come back to bite us in the butt.

Why would we think that the diplomatic corps and others within the halls of political power would be any different? In fact, I can see why this group would be more prone to dual opinions due to the nature of those they are forced to deal with while wearing a smile. I am mystified, though, as to why supposedly well-educated officials chose to include their real feelings in electronic communiques. The only explanation lies in the hubris that most, if not all, high ranking politicos possess. I’d say that Richard Nixon started the ball rolling by recording the nefarious deeds that occurred during his White House tenure. From tape recorders to open microphones to “off-camera” remarks with the cameras rolling: the examples are abundant. 

We are now hearing from administration officials that these leaked papers have seriously damaged any and all diplomatic efforts. Is there any doubt that foreign officials hold similar dual opinions as ours apparently do? The only difference is the recent exposure of our innermost feelings and you can bet that maximum hay will be made by those across the table in future talks. Other than that, though, little has changed.

Throughout all political and corporate dealings similar opinions run under the surface of more civil discussions. No one should be surprised at this. To document these opinions, though, is simply setting the stage for the future requirement of damage control.  WikiLeaks promises more information from the corporate boardrooms that conduct and condone skullduggery with even more harmful effects. And who will be surprised at these discoveries?

Rather than focus on the shortsightedness of those putting their personal opinions down on paper, we are asked to look at Army Private Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for crossing the line and behaving in an irresponsible manner. Don’t buy into this. Their actions, I believe, center around feelings of the world spinning out of control under a heavy influence of double talk and obfuscation of reality. I believe their acts represent an attempt to change the course of our foreign relations because more normal avenues have resulted in little or no alterations.

Can we ever hope to eliminate opinions of the heart? No. Can we hope to align them with our public perception of those with whom we are forced to negotiate? Probably not. I would have hoped, though, that our officials would have simply shrugged as if to say, “Yeah, so we think those guys are idiots. They think we’re idiots, too.”  Either way, we must come to terms with the fact that we all live in a glass house these days and the time for casting stones has passed. At least to the extent of resisting the urge to document our darker sides on the electronic version of a bathroom wall.

Who's Your Daddy?

It’s hard to find any facet of today’s life that lacks a sponsor. The sporting world is rife with patches and logos galore. Even highlights and statistics updates have some corporate name associated with each tidbit. Arenas have corporate sponsors that gain the right to add their name to that particular venue. No, advertising seems to be central to our daily way of life and no one seems to be immune from the temptation of receiving large sums of money in return for proudly displaying the names of corporate sponsors. Except one: politics.

Why is it that those who receive large contributions from specific industries are averse to publicizing the association? Could it be that, if we knew of the association, we might be averse to supporting that particular politico? Would we support a sports team if they played in “Pharmaceutical Park” or “Bankers’ Arena”? Probably not as enthusiastically, perhaps. And that is why politicians avoid naming their “sponsors”. Many of them would likely leave a bad taste in the electorate’s mouth. And that is exactly the reason why we should press for some way to identify who’s paying the bills for our representatives.

How about requiring each elected representative to wear lapel pins representing his top three donors. Perhaps an oil derrick for the oil industry or a band aid for healthcare providers or a snake for the lawyer lobby. We could think up some good ones, I’d say, and then we could all look at our guys and gals and tell immediately who’s in bed with whom. Radio and print would be required to add voiceovers or captions to identify the top three, too. “Joe Doaks, Congressman, East Carolina, Tobacco/Mining/NRA” as an example. Granted, some may find those sponsors likable and that’s OK, too. The point is that each voter will be able to instantly approve or disapprove of their representatives choice of friends and react accordingly.

Don’t expect this idea to get a warm reception in the halls of political power. Most elected officials prefer the perception of independence from special interest groups while accepting donations from the very same folks. And those “folks” much prefer the anonymity, too, so as to appear interested in an even playing field while ponying up big bucks for access and influence. Sorry, but the independent politician is extinct in today’s system. It takes big bucks to run for office and those bucks come from somewhere. And as soon as the first dollar is accepted, independence walks right out the front door.

There is an additional, perhaps greater, benefit to this proposal: since no donor would want to appear on the lapel of a supposedly unbiased official, most groups would seek to be number four or lower on the list of contributors. This means that contributions would start to decline in search of that lower tier and, as soon as number four became number three, the cash flow would be further reduced. Over time, the coffers begin to dry up and the next thing you know, public financing of campaigns is readily adopted by all seeking a seat at the public service table. And then, maybe, we may be able to once again elect truly independent candidates.

We know what sponsors are bringing us our television, newspaper, sports, and just about everything else. Isn’t it time that we are equally aware of who’s bringing us our politicians and the laws they endorse? I think so. If you do, too, send this on to someone  else. That’s how grass roots efforts get started, you know.

What Next?

“You know the drill: spread ‘em!” An outtake from a popular cop show? No, the phrase now heard at airports around the country spoken by any one of the innumerable TSA screeners. Regular readers know my feelings regarding this agency and I will try to avoid redundancy as I address this latest affront to the traveling public.

First, let’s look at what we know. The TSA  (no, it does not stand for Thousands Standing Around, but I must admit it would be appropriate) is tasked with creating the image of providing meaningful security. To think that this assemblage is comprised of experienced security professionals is laughable. One look no further than their on-line application to see how low the standards are. I’d be surprised if much difference was found between this application and those from fast-food chains. Suffice it to say that your screener is more than likely nothing more than a clerk: one who knows nothing more than policy, if that, and cannot see any shades of gray while exercising the duties of the job.

We also know the TSA is reactive rather than proactive. They started looking at our shoes after the shoe bomber. They limited our liquids to three ounces after the London plot was exposed. And now they seek to examine our unmentionables almost a year after the underwear bomber. In other words, they are protecting us from yesterday’s dangers with nary a look at what might happen tomorrow. Now, since the cargo plane scheme, print cartridges are outlawed. I find the mentality as simplistic as Whack-A-Mole. They keep looking at the last hole rather than getting ready for the head to appear in a different location.

That about sums up what we know about the TSA, doesn’t it? A group of inexperienced folks strictly following procedures while looking for old dangers. The new procedure that has caused such an uproar is only the latest in a series of steps that accomplish little more than adding another layer of paint on a façade. And what a procedure it is. You’ve got to admit, though, that at least you’re given a choice: submit to a naked photo session or allow a stranger to grope you. Boy oh boy, where do I sign up?

Now here’s what we don’t know: will the traveling public finally say they’ve had it with the poking and prodding or will they meekly submit to yet further intrusion? Will they endure the pat-down so as to attain a greater good or will they surrender to the more timely radioactive picture of their nether regions? Will they demand adherence to the 4th Amendment or acquiesce in the name of homeland security? So far, the reaction gives me hope that we have, indeed, reached the limit, but my only fear is that the indignation will wane in the name of expediency. The idea of an opt-out day just prior to Thanksgiving is admirable, but the opting-out decision must become a daily philosophy if we are to have any hope that this procedure will be amended or rescinded. 

Day in and day out, we must choose a pat-down in a private area. The TSA doesn’t want you to opt out in favor of the pat down because it takes longer and requires more personnel. Add the request for a private pat down and the need for both time and people are amplified. And when requesting the private pat down, keep one more thing in mind: the private session will have an additional person in the room. This person is another TSA representative to make sure there are no liberties taken. Well, what about a passenger representative? I’d suggest taking a friend in with you to back up your side of the story if anything seems untoward. You can bet that the two TSA types will provide cover for each other, leaving you out in the cold. No, take a friend/witness of some sort. Yes, it will take longer and yes, the delays may seem eternal. But only then will the process change.

In the meantime, we may hear requests for patience as procedures are “tweaked”. Don’t believe it for a minute. If you reconsider and agree to submit to the “simple scan” you can be assured that change will be further delayed. We’ve got to stay the course until sanity returns to our airport security process. You may also consider writing to airlines and airports of choice and telling them that your travel plans will not include flying until such time that these onerous procedures are eliminated. It will add to the pressure needed for the TSA to alter their approach..

This is truly a grass roots effort as the higher-ups have no real desire to change procedures they have put into action. We’ve all heard the “take back our country” campaign slogans leading up to the election earlier this month. How about taking back our airports? Perhaps we can create a TSA that bases its screening on current threats while using additional techniques seen in countries around the world. It would cost more to obtain the services of true security professionals, but I can’t help but think that air travel might once again become somewhat of a pleasurable experience. And wouldn’t that be money well spent?

The Fight's the Thing

Over the years I’ve developed a reputation as being a pessimist. A grumpy old man, if you will. While I do not consider this a bad thing, entirely, I find it overly simplistic and lacking any understanding of the underlying motives.

First of all, I’m more of a realist than anything else. Forty years in aviation may have well created this mindset. To paint a rosy picture while your airplane is coming apart around you is no more desirable than simply folding your arms in surrender. Optimists and pessimists operate in those realms. I’m also a firm believer in Murphy’s Law and never celebrate an effort going well until it is completed. Regardless, under my seemingly rough exterior beats a hopeful, almost Quixotic, heart. A conundrum of extreme proportions at first glance, but I believe such an outlook would serve us all well.

Vince Lombardi is widely known for his philosophy on winning: it’s not everything...it’s the only thing. To put it another way, why try if success is out of the question? In the sporting world, of course, success is never out of the question, but in the world that most of us deal with daily there are endeavors that seem doomed before we begin. Fighting City Hall, for instance. Or bad customer service. Or the inevitable delay, be it in traffic or any one of a sundry of projects lined up for a given day.

When faced with these scenarios, many of us simply shrug our shoulders, scuff the sidewalk with our shoes, and say (or think), “What’s the use? I guess it could be worse.” And with nary a figurative shot fired, we’ve surrendered to the powers that be. Our expectations, in other words, have fallen so low that almost everything is acceptable despite the level of repulsion.

I would suggest that it is past time to lift our eyes a little higher to the horizon and start tilting at some of these windmills. We must raise our expectations and communicate our frustration when those expectations are not met. Talk to your elected officials, get the store manager, ask for a supervisor. Let those powers that be know you’re not happy and they will not be happy should the conditions continue. Will you see an instantaneous change in your environment? No, but as our expectations are raised and we begin to express our unhappiness at the status quo you can bet that, slowly yet surely, our quality of life will also rise.

The “what good will it do” mentality is the ultimate in pessimism. It, and the associated thoughts of “it could be worse” or “at least a have a (whatever)”, is the language of defeat and the furthest from my mind as I stir the pot and expect more from those around me.

Case in point: several months ago my wife suffered a severe reaction to a prescribed medication. An ambulance was required to transport her to the local hospital. (Yes, she’s fully recovered. Thank you for asking.) The ambulance bill included a $200 “night charge”. I inquired as to the rationale behind this charge. Are the drivers paid more for night work? (No) Are there other additional costs to warrant this increase? (Apparently not) I paid the bill, less the $200 dollars, and included a letter explaining my reluctance to simply pay the up-charge based on their ability to charge rather than the need.

The check has been cashed and I’ve yet to hear back from the ambulance folks. That doesn’t mean I won’t, though. If that comes to pass, I’ll reiterate my position and ask them to send another bill with an explanation for the charge. If they do, I’ll then go my nearest television station with a consumer reporter and see if there is any interest in a story. If not, I’ll probably pay the $200. My insurance did cover the entire charge and they’ve no interest in my refunding the difference back to them (bookkeeping problems, I guess) so I’d probably end this thing. But the main point is the questioning of the charge based solely on it’s legitimacy. Whether I end up paying or not is secondary to the question. In other words, the fight is more important than the victory.

Speak up...speak out...tilt at a windmill or two: raise your expectations. They represent a powerful force and lifting them a bit allows each of us to feel more empowered and perhaps leads us all to a better day. Tp paraphrase “The Man of LaMancha”: spend less time seeing life as it is and more as it should be.”  Hardly words from a grumpy old man, huh?

We...They

Wow! What an election last Tuesday. Some Tea Party loyalists and a wave of "traditional" Republicans shifted the balance of power in the House well to the right. Debate has already started regarding our future. Gridlock or progress via compromise?Let’s take a look:

With the new congressional line-up, both the left and right have a scapegoat in the other side. Who’s to say which side is being obstinate? Neither can budge and still blame the opponent’s recalcitrance for lack of forward movement. Is this what we have to look forward to for the next two years? I certainly hope not, but other facets intrigue me even more.

First of all, the new majority claims that they've received a mandate from the voters refuting anything with Obama's fingerprints on it. An estimated 42% of eligible voters participated last week by casting a ballot. And most victories were within 10 point margins. That's not much of a mandate to me. We could spend the rest of our time talking about the disenchanted 58% that had something better to do than vote, but to what avail? The sadder commentary lies in the fact that the 42% represents a high for mid-term participation. Regardless, there is no mandate: the word is bandied about by spin doctors trying to steamroll the opposition.

Throughout the campaign, much has been said regarding those in Washington. “They” in other words. They don’t listen to us. They work for us. They are out of touch. And so on and so on. Literally overnight, these first term House members have gone from “us” to “they”. Before long, they will be neck deep in adoration and attention from those seeking a willing ear in which to whisper many promises of success and recognition. The bowl of cream will be placed in front of each one in the hopes that a few laps will turn their attention to a greater good: the will of the lobbyist. Choices will have to be made and alliances formed where one rubs the back today so as to have their back rubbed tomorrow. Such is the political world and I can’t wait to see how our new arrivals will handle such temptations.

It's one thing to create the image of making Washington change from the outside and then actually doing it on the inside. Many have tried, most have failed. Does that mean that I wish failure upon the new House of Representatives? Of course not. First of all, that would be un-American and secondly, it sounds too much like Limbaugh. That doesn’t mean, though, that I’m blind to the fact that such a scenario may well come to pass.

I'm also concerned about the apparent impatience of the citizenry. Two years is not long enough to dig out of the economic hole we find ourselves in. Saturday's New York Times reported an increase in October jobs of  151,000. While this number is higher than expected, the report goes on to say that, according to the Brookings' Institution's Hamilton Project,  even if 208,000 jobs were added every month  (the highest yearly rate we've seen in the past decade) it would take 12 years to close the gap. You have to remember that new worker bees come into the mix every month so the jobs required continue to increase, too. 

Last week I compared our economic distress to a case of overeating and the ensuing pain. I'm inclined to think that a long battle with cancer may be a more appropriate analogy. We are in the early stages of treatment for an affliction that will take more than a few days and minor inconvenience to conquer.

In the meantime, I suggest a more temperate approach in choosing those that govern while realizing fully the depth of the challenges we face. Swaying from one party to the other and embracing opposing philosophies every 24 months doesn't exactly serve our best interests. Humans being what they are though, I guess that we can't hope for much more indulgence. I’m reminded of Walt Kelly’s cartoon strip “Pogo” and its most famous mantra: “We have met the enemy and he is us!” Time will tell, but we can all be assured of the continuing sideshow known as Washington politics.

Shortcuts

Humans are lazy, in case you haven’t noticed. We will line up to buy the latest labor-saving device despite knowing nothing about what it does or if we need it. If it’s easier or quicker, we’re interested. These doodads all fall under the heading of “shortcut” and we love shortcuts. More than likely, they started out as a geographic means to simply shorten the distance from A to B. I’m only guessing because I wasn’t around when they became popular, but I can’t help but think that someone was looking for a way to shave a few minutes off of the trek from the hunting ground to the tepee.

Like most everything else, the shortcut has taken on an existence of its own, much to the detriment of society. The lottery? A shortcut to riches. The microwave? A shortcut to dinner. The Tivo or DVR? Shortcuts to our favorite programs absent those pesky commercials. Even computers have shortcuts to save the user a nano-second or two in opening a program. Our patience has been overwhelmed by searching for that elusive shortcut needed at a particular moment for a particular purpose. Ironically, when we find our shortcut, we immediately look to find a shortcut to the shortcut!

This never-ending quest has found itself into the political arena, too. As election day approaches, some candidates are painting their campaigns as a way to end our current economic malaise and immediately turn a corner to prosperity. A shortcut, in other words. I hate to break it to you, but no matter who wins what race, our near-term future is bound to be full of stagnation or, at best, a snail’s pace of progress. Why?

Have you ever eaten too much of a given food and then suffered the effects? You know: bloating, burping, hurling, etc. Eventually the “runs” (or “trots” if you prefer) show up to complete the entire miserable experience. No step can be omitted: it is a process that must run its course before we feel any better and there is no way to speed up the recovery. Well, think of our economy having over-indulged on housing. We are maybe half-way through that entire miserable experience and no shortcut exists that will save us from what is yet to come.

You may think I am asking you to vote in a certain manner that might suggest “staying the course”. Not true. I am saying, though, that there is no magic bullet, no shortcut that will allow us to escape the future pangs as our economy recovers. Less stimulus...more stimulus...lower taxes...higher taxes? Beats me as to what formula may at least minimize the discomfort. Regardless, we’re in this to the end and the end is still a ways off.

I’m no more thrilled by this as you. But it is what it is. Who knows: maybe our thirst for shortcuts will be slaked for a time. Probably not, though. After all, we’re a lazy species.

Midterm Exam

Mid-term elections, that is. And the best part is that the exam is ungraded. At least for now. We’ll have to wait and see what November 2nd brings and then wait further to see if the new boss is any different than the old boss. In the meantime, though, let’s look at some general issues that can be answered individually.

First of all, I’m curious about the level of excitement at rallies for many of the candidates. I can understand the excitement a prospect of change creates, but no change has occurred yet and, even though a new elected individual takes office there is no guarantee of change in the future. The excitement sounds like marketing to me and that means shills are in the crowd to amp up the reactions. Something less than transparent and honest, huh?

I’m also puzzled by the notion that political neophytes labeled as outsiders are running for office on the grounds of upsetting government’s apple cart and taking us all to a better day. Don’t get me wrong: I encourage grass roots efforts and have espoused their impact in previous writings. But there is a difference between instilling the desire for change in the halls of power and throwing them out to do it ourselves.

Have you ever been unhappy with your doctor or lawyer? And, if so, did you perform your own surgery or act as your own counsel? Probably not. You more than likely sought out another qualified professional, i.e. career-type, to take over. Why would the political world be any different? To think that Joe or Jane next-door-neighbor/just like me can step in and handle the rigors of governing is absurd. I don’t know about you, but I want someone a good deal smarter than I. I’m not voting for the person I’d most like to invite over for dinner. I’m voting for the best possible person to lead my city/state/country through the next several years. Or, perhaps worse yet: thinking that Joe or Jane CEO can take over a political position and run it like a board room is beyond naive. Different careers require different skill sets and we should all know this.  

Speaking of the CEO types running for office next month, has anyone asked why they would spend millions for a position that pays much less? Many claim to be fiscal conservatives, but the campaigns they are conducting spend money as if it’s going out of style. Meg Whitman, running for California’s Governor, has spent over $100 million of her own money! Either she is fiscally irresponsible or is planning for a huge return on her investment. The question in my mind centers around how she’s going to get that return and from whom.

There can be no argument that times are something less than ideal and everyone is looking for the first rays of sunshine after a terrible storm. Our error lies in the sense that someone who has never done this before will be more successful than someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. While a change in office-holder may well be in order, wouldn’t we be better served by electing someone who at least knows the modus operandi of the political animal?

While conversations, debates, and arguments over political topics tend to be filled with vitriol and high levels of emotion, I would suggest that a calmer state of mind is required before casting a ballot. Know the candidates, the issues, and the priorities you might share with a candidate. With this information, pull the lever or fill in the box or punch out the square (keeping an eye on any hanging chads). This is all best done with a calm and collected mind lest emotion sweep us to rash and unthought-out actions. 

Regardless, nothing will change overnight within any political system merely because a new class of freshmen (or an individual Governor “Frosh”) takes office. While the promise of better times may be enough for the campaign trail, we must look beyond the hype and cast our votes wisely. Doing any less may lead us to an even harsher reality.

Introductory Offers

It’s hard to find a segment of commerce that doesn’t offer some sort of introductory offer to new customers. Telephone and cable/satellite TV providers definitely lead the list, but other commercial enterprises look for ways to entice you to bring them your business. This ploy can be called the hook for it is offered not because you are an excellent person, but because the business in question wants a bigger market share and more customers are required for that. Once they have you, it’s on to the next new customer. An honorable practice? I don’t know; it sounds much like what a drug dealer does in handing out “freebies” to what are hoped to be future clients.

I can see why companies offer these incentives to new customers, but I fail to see why the same companies are loathe to provide any consideration to long-time relationships. There can be only one reason: the percentage of folks taking their business elsewhere is very low. If no one leaves, why offer them anything for their loyalty? Uh oh, that must mean that those who take our money care nothing about us other than the continued cash flow we represent. So much for that slogan of “your business is very important to us” meaning anything of import.

OK, so be it, but the playing field is far from level if we, the customers, do not exercise our rights to affiliate with other companies offering identical services at a lower, albeit introductory, price. I know, it can be a hassle at times and, at other times, impossible due to availability, etc. But by and large, the introductory-offer scam succeeds because we allow it. Sometimes the mere threat of switching allegiance is enough to extract some reward for our loyalty, but even that takes some effort from us.

If you’ve had quite enough of seeing better offers for new customers, I’ve a suggestion: take advantage of as many of them as possible. Change your providers for phone, television, utilities, and so forth if you’re able. Some options are limited by geography or unique services available only through certain companies. Even then, call your provider and tell them you plan on switching unless they reward your continued patronage.

Many times we go into a retail store and are offered a discount on our purchase if we open a credit card. And, many times, we’d rather not take the time. Take the time! Save some bucks and then cancel the card if you want. The offer is made in the hopes that you’ll be back to spend even more. So what’s wrong with dashing the hopes of an entity trying to get a hook into you? It sure sounds fair to me.

If we took the time to send a message to those with whom we do business that we deserve some recognition, too, I think we’d see a realignment in the world of introductory offers. No, they wouldn’t go away, but we may see more perks extended to long-time customers. It’s all about being savvy consumers and recognizing the true motive of those seeking our business. Would this be considered a large victory? Perhaps not, but in these economic times, any victory is worth savoring.

Breaking the Cycle

Well, it looks like the Mid-East peace process is once again grinding to a halt. If there is any question as to why the fighting within this region of the world seems endless, one look no further than this YouTube link . You'll find a clip for an old Andy Griffith Show and it highlights the history of feuding (the first 4 minutes or so should clear everything up for you). Unfortunately, the Israeli-Palestine conundrum isn’t the only one plaguing the region. Factions fighting within borders and the region’s hatred towards the West combine to make a very volatile situation. 

Of all the obstacles standing in the way of peace, the suicide bomber poses the greatest dilemma for those seeking a better tomorrow. How does one go about deterring an individual who is bent on self-destruction? Most of our suicide-type terrorists are Muslim simply because the Muslims believe in a richly rewarding afterlife for martyrs. And therein lies the key to dissuading these folks from their present course of carnage. What I offer is a solution that disengages the potential suicide bombers from their warring ways, introduces capitalism to the region, and makes an enormous amount of money for the principal architects of the plan.

I suggest tasking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, two of the brightest techno-gurus around, with creating a solar powered video game platform along the line of existing state-of-the-art systems currently available in the United States. Solar power is essential as the sun is the only reliable energy source in the Middle East where most of our suicidal guys and gals seem to be located. Battery back-up would also be essential to allow for use during the hours of darkness.

Now, with the system designed, we ask the best designers to create a whole new generation of video games with names like “Suicide Bomber” and “Find the Infidel”. These games would center on the goal of successfully completing a series of missions that would ultimately lead to the Martyrdom level. It would be very difficult to reach this level of success, but once there our player would find something less than expected: the 72 virgins would be far from desirable and the surrounding environment similarly distasteful. Or, as an alternative, our little video console would self-destruct.

We now have a fully functional entertainment package. All that’s left to do is airdrop as many of these babies as possible throughout the entire region. Think what video games have done for average American teen-agers: they are oblivious to most activities occurring around them and their parents are hard-pressed to get them to do the most menial of chores. Now consider the plight of the Middle Eastern parent seeking to engage his child into preparing for a life of violence.

Why in the world would a kid want to lose his only life when he could play out the same scenario endlessly and have countless virtual lives to risk? And just like that, we’ve got ‘em! They’ll be playing these games night and day, paying little attention to anything else. Even those that view this as a training exercise will be converted (or eliminated) upon reaching the level of “Martyr” and finding a promised land far from promising.

In one fell swoop, we have broken the cycle of violence. As new video games are created, they will be available for sale. That forces our young ex-warriors to get a job so 

they can purchase the latest and greatest versions. And, if we allow advertising on the new games, we further transform the would-be jihadist into a mainstream consumer! All of a sudden, we’ve created a whole new source of consumption hungry for the ways of the West and who better to provide that than the good old U.S. of A.

Other versions could be tailored for specific conflicts: Shia vs Sunni, Jew vs Palestinian, and the like with a slightly different reward for the top tier of video accomplishments. The point is to create a generation that is not focused on killing someone else simply because it is tradition. Then, future generations have a greater chance of a more normal life. 

This formula for peace may strike some as insane, unworkable, or perhaps even delusional, but is it any worse than relying on the same failed strategies of the past? While anyone would agree the approach is definitely “outside the box”, it might well provide a way out of the box we’ve been trapped in for too many generations.

Wagging the Dog

We've always referred to Major League Baseball players as "the boys of summer". Sadly, the boys have been replaced by old men in suits: the league officials and network execs. The coup has been gradual, but the national pastime is now subservient to those that manage and program.

Case in point: The New York Yankees are embroiled in a final push to win the AL East. Friday night's game was rained out, so a double-header was scheduled for Saturday. Now, one would think that the first game would start around 1:00 with the second game at its regularly scheduled time (7:00). The New York Times reported that the first game would begin at 4:00 and the second one at 9:00 to better coincide with the desires of Fox Sports. Screw the fans that would like to watch the game at a reasonable time and screw the players who now must deal with circadian rhythm disruption. It’s all about ad rates and programming and nothing about the game. “Big deal,” you think. “I hate the Yankees, anyway.” But chances are good that you enjoy some aspect of professional sports, don't you? If so, your sport of choice is being similarly bastardized to maximize the bottom line with nary a consideration for any other interested party.

The NFL is considering an 18 game season. Is that to bring us more football? Of course not: it is to provide more opportunity for spectator and television money to flow into the coffers. Never mind the health of the players. There's always some other schmuck to market as the next super-star. The major sports leagues currently overlap while exploring adding more games to an already bloated schedule. Even tennis players are complaining about the demands of a longer season and matches at inhuman times merely to cater to the almighty television network covering the event.

And when was the last time you took the family to a game? No longer a simple outing, is it? No, now it represents a major financial investment. So the stadium seats, if they are filled at all, are occupied by corporate clients and the like while most of the regular fans sit in front of their 53 inch wide-screen HDTV for a fraction of the cost and a better view of the game, to boot. All the more reason to concentrate on the network's priorities, perhaps, but at what cost?

The era of sports idolatry has come and gone. Steroids, doping, extramarital affairs, and other less-than-admirable activities have jaded the fan base to a point where any expectation of us showing up at weird hours to appease the powers-that-be is misplaced and overly optimistic. Add Tivo and DVRs to the mix and the true power of television timing starts to fade. Can a reduction in advertising revenue be far behind?

Remember when World Series games were played during the day so kids could watch? Remember when your sports idols weren't under clouds of suspicion for a host of mischievous deeds? Maybe its time to find other diversions that don't include the willing sacrifice of appreciable sums of money or blocks of time. Maybe its time for the dog to once again start wagging the tail.  

Theory vs Reality

There’s an old joke that tells of the young boy who asks his dad for help on a report describing the difference between theory and reality. His dad tells him to ask his mom and sister if they would sleep with a strange man for a million dollars. The son returns and tells his dad that both said yes. “So,” the Dad says, “in theory we’re millionaires, but in reality we’re living with a couple of whores.”

There is, and always has been, a wide gap between theory and reality, but we tend to lose sight of this all important difference as we look at the world around us. For instance:

THEORY: Banks are our friend.

REALITY: Banks want to make money and they use our money to do it by lending it to other people who need money. Unless, of course, the banks have invested in questionable assets that have lost value. Then, they hoard their money to protect themselves while we wither on the vine. Much like the current financial picture.

THEORY: Health insurance companies care about us.

REALITY: Health insurance companies care about us so long as we’re healthy. Once we become ill, though, they lose interest as they lose money paying our medical bills. The new law mandating coverage for children with pre-existing conditions has resulted in no new policies being written for sick children. The only way around this is to get a family policy and that will involve higher premiums.

THEORY: Complex decisions are made in a calm manner with little or no discussion.

REALITY: Complex decisions come out of input from many sources and generally involve bickering, belligerence, and cajoling. Much is being made of Bob Woodward’s new book in which he portrays the administration’s angst-filled discussions over the war in Afghanistan. Come on folks: a room full of high ranking politicians and military personnel is ripe for dissension when ordering a pizza! To think that decisions of this magnitude are made without discord is naive.

THEORY: One political party can solve our problems.

REALITY: Neither political party can solve our problems without cooperation from their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. This is called compromise and leads to progress. We are now experiencing partisanship personified where nothing is better than paralyzing the opponent’s agenda. And don’t think that it wouldn’t happen if the majority party was reversed.

THEORY: We want Washington (or our respective states) to quit spending money.

REALITY: We want Washington (or our respective states) to quit spending money on things that “we” don’t want or don’t use. All of those programs and projects that bring dollars to our doorstep? Keep ‘em coming! Just quit sending money to other doorsteps.

THEORY: We need independent politicians to solve our problems.

REALITY: There are no independent politicians. Republicans and Democrats rely on their respective “machines” to supply money and organization. That makes them beholden. Independently wealthy candidates, while seemingly insulated from party influences, have other agendas that may well be more dangerous than more traditional candidates.

THEORY: Our best days are behind us.

REALITY: With serious, adult leadership our best days are yet to come. It is time for smart folks to come together and strive to solve the monumental challenges facing us all. It matters not which party has a good idea or which politician will succeed or fail in a re-election bid. What matters is everyone pulling on the same oar at the same time. Of course, in light of the current political gridlock, you might well call this the greatest theory of all.

We Need to Talk

Richard Nixon spoke of the “silent majority” in 1969 when he sought support for the Vietnam war. I’d like to address my silent majority: those that take the time to drop in to my weekly column for a look-see or listen. I’ve been writing for almost 21 months and have scant comments from which to glean favor or opposition.

The site has almost 14,000 hits. Granted, some may have dropped in by mistake. Even if we discount a random 10%, that still leaves a significant number with nothing to say. My objective is to create some ensuing conversation or debate over the merits of my musings. A comment to congratulate or castigate would be much appreciated. How else can I know if I’m on to something? Or, perhaps, maybe I’m bumping along on a dead-end road. Either way, I’d sure like some input.

In this Twitter / Facebook oriented world, I’m hard-pressed to explain the dearth of opinions on my opinions. A friend of mine is a loyal reader and even she opted to send me a personal note rather than a comment for all to see. It contained high praise (I’ll spare you), but even if it hadn’t, the posting may have generated other comments. So come on: do ya like it or do ya hate it? Get involved...tell a friend...tell me!

Another regular reader has weighed in on my new podcast format and thinks that I should become more passionate in my speaking. After all, she wrote, I allude to a rant with my “resounding hell no” on the column’s home page. Point taken, but allow me to offer another angle.

There are two ways to burn a log. (Yes, I know there are more than two ways to burn a log just as there are more than two ways to skin a cat. Gimme a break here, OK?) You can turn a blowtorch on it and it will, indeed, burn. Until you take the flame away, that is. There is no internal heat created to maintain the combustion. Or you can introduce a smaller flame to the core of the log and wait until it catches hold. Then, when you remove the flame, the heat remains and the log continues to burn.

A rant is much like that blowtorch I mentioned. It gets the listener all worked up and feverish. A day later, though, as the rant in question fades from the mind, the fever fades, too. We see that on many talk radio and cable television programs.  Over-the-top theatrics designed to create a visceral reaction in the hopes of forming ideas based on emotion rather than intellect.

I’d rather my opinions be akin to the small flame in the middle of the log (you’re the log in this analogy, you know). I assume that most in the audience still have an ember or two of indignation somewhere deep inside and I strive to stoke that ember by speaking in reasonably temperate tones. I hope that my points will strike some sort of chord that will continue to resonate over time. I’m less interested in whether you agree or disagree with my position. If my words create a desire to look at things in a different way I’m a happy guy. So while my inflection may not approach the levels of more well-known personalities, I’d like to think that my ideas will have a longer life span within your memory bank.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better after our little talk. I know it was a one-way chat, but all the more reason to submit a comment. Both column and podcast offerings provide an avenue to respond and I’m more than happy to engage. So take a minute and let me know you’re out there. And as the Bartles and Jaymes pitchmen were know to say: thank you for your support.

S.O.S.

It looks like the Qurans in Gainesville, Florida are safe, at least for the time being. Terry Jones really got the world’s attention, though, and proved at least one point: no single religion has the corner on zealots. No, there are more than enough to go around and, of course, that got me thinking.

Most, if not all, religions have a central character. Let’s call that individual their super-hero for lack of a better name. This super-hero, in most cases, is predicted to return to earth via a sudden appearance or reincarnation. Sadly, this event is not to occur until mankind is leaning over the precipice of annihilation. I’m hard pressed to imagine their ability to pull us back from the brink and, even if they could, why would they wait so long?

It seems to me that mankind is pretty much down that road to ruin, so why don’t the super-heroes all get together and return now? I propose a formation of the “Super-Heroes Of the World United in Peace” or SHOW UP to introduce us all to the proper path to enlightenment and tranquility. God (no offense) knows that we’re sorely in need of such redirection. And it is imperative that all the super-heroes are on board. No abstainers in this effort: everyone on earth must know at the same moment if they were correct in their afterlife philosophy.  Anyway, the only reason I can think of for a super-hero to opt out would be that human emotion of jealousy and wouldn’t a supreme being of some sort be well beyond such pettiness? Not to mention the disappointed devotees should only one show up (unless, of course, there is only one).

There are others that do not believe in super-heroes of any kind and give short shrift to religion in general. I find myself more in this camp than the other, although I classify myself as a deist when asked. Regardless, who am I to doubt the super-hero theory? But enough, already, let’s get them back and get on with the betterment of society. Where’s Rod Roddy and his “Come on down!” plea when we really need him? To think that the timing is not yet right to intervene speaks more of a doubted prophecy than a profound faith.

History has shown that a preponderance of bloodshed was a direct result of religious differences. The same holds true today and our friendly Gainesville preacher is only the latest in a long line of would-be prophets, fear-mongers, or faith healers. So let us pray for our various and sundry super-heroes to deliver us from this evil. And if they decide to remain in the shadows and let us continue headlong towards the end of days? I’d say that it would indicate their reluctance to help us out at all and perhaps we are more on our own than previously thought. Maybe we should start caring more for each other than relying upon our respective super-hero to swoop in and save us at the last moment. 

Labor Pains

Today is Labor Day so what better time to spend a few minutes celebrating America’s labor force. OK...time’s up. You see, there doesn’t seem to be much to celebrate in light of the unemployment rate, the recession, and the plight of organized and unorganized labor alike. Unrelated topics? I’d beg to differ.

Historically, the American worker made something. A good thing since the American economy was (and still is) based on consumerism. While some companies recognized the value of their employees, others saw them as nothing but a liability and treated them accordingly. This led to the creation of labor unions to counteract the one-sidedness in the workplace.

The global economy caused corporations to rethink their “allegiance” to their community, if it ever existed in the first place. Think about it: the local C.E.O. knows that he has to set up shop somewhere and wherever that might be there will be a community that must be courted and wooed. We’ve come to learn that, given a better deal somewhere else, our benefactor will be gone in a New York minute. Now the options include the entire world and there are many places outside of this country with an abundance of cheap labor available. Say goodbye to the local plant that kept the town in business. And say goodbye to the town, too.

The power of a unionized labor force has withered to a point where just 9% of the workforce is organized. A figure not seen since 1932. The idea that unions are no longer needed resonates among those that see themselves as independent, hard working, loyal employees. “Why pay dues? I’m a good employee, so what have I to fear?” Given a concerned and engaged employer, such an employee would, indeed, have nothing to fear, but we’ve established that many employers are not loyal to anyone or anything other than their bottom line. And, in those cases, no employee is safe from a whimsical approach to lay-offs or disciplinary measures.

Now, with the recession, we have an abundance of consumers no longer able or willing to consume. Many have no job and the rest are hunkering down and delaying purchases while waiting for a brighter day. After all, their job could be next. Many jobs, or careers, are gone for good and there is an unknown future for those ex-worker bees as we do not yet know which nascent industry might provide the most promise.

So much for a Labor Day celebration, huh? We can do nothing about a recession if we are hesitant in purchasing anything other than the essentials. We cannot change the mentality of the corporate boardroom, but we can, however, take a realistic look at the press releases that emanate from therein and accept the fact that employee welfare is more than likely low on the priority list.

About all we can do is realize that any job security, absent some sort of organization looking out for our best interests, can be dashed in a flash by a capricious boss striving for yet another rung on the corporate ladder or another dollar enclosed in the yearly bonus. Are there companies out there who thrive without a union? Of course:  IBM, Gillette, and Motorola to name just a few. I do not suggest that a union be formed for no good reason, but every employee out there knows when one is needed. A workplace with a cloud of uncertainty hovering above is far from an ideal environment and begs for a security that comes from a coalescence of the employees. And this “strength in numbers” approach is not limited to the traditional unions we all know. Companies form conglomerates, cartels, and other such organizations to better deal with corporate challenges. Doctors have the AMA as lawyers similarly have the ABA and they both form clinics or law offices that provide for greater control over exterior forces. The only folks who appreciate the go-it-alone mentality are those cutting the paychecks because they know it’s much easier to cut the workforce when the mood strikes.

Does a union guarantee high wages and unlimited job security? No, but it does ensure a voice in one’s fate and serves to level a playing field that, otherwise, is tilted well in favor of management. Think back to your playground days when you accepted a teeter-totter ride from the biggest kid in the class. Remember how much fun it was to hang in the air, completely helpless, in a never-ending, horrendous experience until your “partner” decided to let you down? Your only hope then was to get another kid on your end of the board. The same applies today. The only question is on which end of the teeter-totter you’d rather sit.

Statistical Tsunami

We are being overrun by statistics, you know. And, to prove my point, 73% agree. You’re right in thinking that I pulled that number out of thin air, but nevertheless, you’d be hard-pressed to claim that such numbers haven’t become the primary means of describing the current state of our lives, be it economic, religious, medical, or any one of a multitude of pigeon-holes.

I can remember when I was first exposed to statistics: as a young boy, three out of four dentists recommended Crest toothpaste. At least that’s what the guy on TV said and who was I to argue? (I used Colgate, by the way, and still do.) I couldn’t help but wonder how many dentists were asked about toothpaste. At least four, I guessed, but even as an unformed thought, the statistic created doubt in my mind about the bigger picture surrounding this seemingly innocuous yet significant number.

Today we are confronted with an ever-increasing spate of statistics that, while providing a better-or-worse barometer, continue to fail in providing the whole picture. Our birthrate is the lowest in 100 years. What about 101 years? Or 125? Did someone pick 100 years to prove a point about the birthrate or to create a false impression? Housing numbers are dismal. Some statistics are the worst on record and, because of that, are hard to argue with. Others are limited in time frame, though, and that lessens their value.

Opinion polls are other forms of gathering statistics. Some may be aware of my aversion to these creatures and I’ll spare the rest of you a segue into that arena. Suffice it to say that, while we get numbers claiming to represent the mood of the citizenry, we know nothing about the questions asked or those who responded and their personal agendas. We’ve all used language to pose a question in such a way that pretty much ensures a specific answer. Do we trust pollsters to avoid such chicanery or accept the fact that their paycheck comes from those interested in certain outcomes?

The sporting world is perhaps the most awash in numbers and stats. And I can’t help but think that, as I write this, someone is coming up with a new statistic to further muddy the water of an enterprise that comes down to a simple final score. Perhaps the most ludicrous in all of sport is that of batting average: Ted Williams and his batting average of .400 is the peak that today’s ballplayers strive to reach. You know, of course, that this number reflects a success rate at the plate of only 40%.

“Welcome aboard today’s flight, folks. This is your Captain speaking and I’m happy to announce that I’ve just been awarded my airline’s highest honor by successfully completing 40% of my flights.” Kinda gives you a nice, warm feeling, doesn’t it? Or not. Would you select a surgeon based on this lofty number? Or a lawyer? I doubt it. Yet baseball awards the batting championship based on a number that falls even lower and represents an overall failure at the plate.

Can we escape this flood of numbers? I doubt it, but we can become more suspicious of the intent behind them rather than accepting them in a sound bite designed to shape our perceptions at the cost of the reality. And the more convoluted they seem and the more limitations they include should serve only to heighten that skepticism. My only substantive suggestion is to Major League Baseball: how about a “Successful-At-Bat” statistic. This would include sacrifice flies, moving runners along, and other strategies that signify the correlation between strategy and execution. I can only hope that this number would lie somewhere above 50% and more fairly represent the hitter’s success when holding a bat.

The Rear View Mirror

A co-worker of mine passed away last week. She and I were close, so it was a priority for me to attend her memorial service. It was held in a Catholic church as she was an Irish Catholic all of her life. Now, churches and I have little in common, but that is not to say I  loathe being in one. In this case, I abstained from the trappings of responding to the priest, etc. Of course, most times I had no idea of how to respond to begin with. Communion? Nope.

The priest delivered the sermon, if you will, and in it he discussed the difference between accomplishment and promise and how it applies to someone who dies before an age that is considered appropriate by society. This comparison struck me to the point where I took out a paper and pen to jot it down lest I forget it.

Think about it: the time we spend appreciating our accomplishments is minor when compared to the time we spend in planning our next set of goals. Our promise, or potential, overrides any past successes as though they are either unimportant or simply a sign of better things to come. The problem lies in the fact that, at some point, there are no future plans because our future no longer exists. We have toiled and striven and dreamed of greater things only to find them ultimately unattainable while ignoring the magnitude of past victories.

Take a moment and think about your life and how someone might describe it if you were to die today. No, you didn't get to millionaire status, but you raised a wonderful family, didn't you? Or, perhaps, your private life was overshadowed by your career progression. Regardless, we've all fallen short in some of our lifelong aspirations while far exceeding our wildest dreams in others. But we have a hard time in embracing the positives and, instead, seem to dwell on our failures. Maybe that’s why we avoid looking back in the first place. Anyway, why wait until we die to savor the things in our past that are noteworthy? Part of the human condition, I guess, but a part that fails to serve our best interests.

I suggest a better balance between our looking ahead for greater returns and enjoying that which we have already accomplished. I see nothing wrong in admitting that, in some ways, our potential has not yet been reached while in others, we've so much for which to be grateful. Resting on our laurels need not be a full-time job, nor should it be, but a little reminiscing and reveling in our glory days may well better prepare us for the challenges that lie ahead. And, as my regular readers know all too well, I’m not suggesting that we lower our expectations. Rather, a look back might remind us that it was a high expectation that contributed greatly in getting us to where we are now.

The Army coined the phrase “be all you can be” as a recruiting motto and I fully support its intent in the greater scheme of things. But take a glance in your personal rear view mirror from time to time and take pride in all that you’ve become.