A Beleaguered Relative

Every family has one: a relative who seems to have outstayed their welcome and falls to the bottom of the “who do we like best” list. We (America) have just such an unsavory relative: our uncle (a rich one, at that) whom we refer to as Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has been around since the War of 1812 and has portrayed the embodiment of the government under which we operate. Lately, though, he has fallen into disfavor and I think he’s getting a bum rap.

Uncle Sam has lasted a good long while and survived under guiding hands that were better suited for other lines of work. He has endured booms and busts, wars and peace all the while protecting his family and providing for it at the same time. Someone recently described government as that which provides in ways that individuals cannot and I think that’s an apt portrayal.

Would you want to rely on a never-ending number of folks in charge of the highways and other parts of our infrastructure? Traveling from one town (or county or state) to the next would entail a wide range of conditions if it were not for a governmental agency overseeing the consistency. Want to put in your own water system or street lights? I doubt it, yet we are railing against what is currently seen as a greater role of government in our daily lives.

The latest, of course, is health care reform. Can we agree that innocent, hard-working people are being ground into grist as they try to cover exorbitant medical bills? If so, can we agree that something must be done to prevent the further degradation in the health of our “family”? The free market? Well, I haven’t seen much voluntary reform from insurance companies or hospitals or trial lawyers, have you? And the Republican chant of “the wrong way to reform” strikes me odd since that group controlled the White House and Congress from 2000-2006 and made not so much as a peep for a change in the way we deal with our sick and uninsured. That tells me they were pretty happy with the status quo and today’s mewlings from the right are more about sour grapes and less about you and me.

Uncle Sam is wasteful, you cry, and chockfull of abuse. You mean just like every other bureaucratic enterprise? Enron, AIG, and the like? Boy, now those guys knew how to run a company, huh? We all laugh at the poster where five men are leaning on shovels while one digs and we compare that to the efficiency of Uncle Sam. Have you ever needed assistance with a household project? Your helper(s) spends a good deal of time standing around awaiting your instructions or for you to complete a portion where assistance is not required. How long would it take to finish the job if you sent him home until the very moment you needed him? And how efficient? Larger construction projects, whether private or public, differ only in scale and the idleness of some is inherent in the tasks at hand.

Yes, there’s a good bit of Uncle Sam in our lives today, but most is concerned with keeping us safe and productive. The EPA, the FDA, the FCC, and the myriad of other agencies are all tasked, in one way or another, with safeguarding and/or regulating our food, water, medicines, work places, highways, and the like. If we had something I call corporate conscience, most of these departments could be disbanded. But it seems that we don’t and we need our Uncle to come in and make sure no one is selling us snake oil. That takes money and inspectors: two crucial elements left to whither on the vine in recent years and such failures lead us only to lament more loudly about our Uncle’s impotence.

The frustration with our current economic lot and the associated challenges it poses is more than understandable. To castigate our Uncle Sam and brand him as the root of all of our misery is nothing more than a campaign slogan used by those on the outside looking to be those on the inside. Remember Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Revolution of 1994 and his Contract With America? Read Joe Scarborough’s “Rome Wasn’t Burnt In a Day” and you’ll see what I mean.

In the meantime, let’s give our Uncle Sam a break. The system that created him is still the best available and we need to separate the rhetoric from the reason before we can identify the true level of governmental intrusion and whether its presence is helpful or hurtful. It takes a little more effort, true, but what’s that they say about “any thing worth having...”?

Breaking News

It’s hard to turn on any newscast today without seeing or hearing the phrase “Breaking News”. An attention getter, for sure, but is it being used too loosely? First of all, the only news that is truly breaking is that which is occurring right now and will not last an inordinate amount of time. An earthquake, for instance. Or the vote on medical reform (so long as the vote is imminent, taking place, or just completed). It won’t be “breaking” come tomorrow or the next day or the next. Maybe a “top story”, but that’s all it warrants by then. My other thought concerns the almost routine usage of this phrase. What with 24/7 news channels, isn’t some kind of news breaking by the second? Of course there is, but is it newsworthy?

I’m afraid that, in an attempt to keep pace with the more spontaneous internet updates available, the more traditional news gatherers are inserting hype where it needn’t appear. Not too long ago, newspapers and wire services allowed their content to be placed on the web free of charge. Their cash flows were healthy and they saw nothing wrong in cultivating a new frontier (the internet) for future users. Well, the cash flow has dried up and now many of us turn to the “free” format on line to get our daily dose of information. Rumors persist that the free ride is coming to an end, though, and I’d say that it might well be a good thing. The internet provides ready access to news, but should it be provided gratis to the detriment of established news gathering and reporting enterprises? How are we better served should our papers and reporters disappear?

While online news reports can combine print with audio and video, the idea that they can continue to prosper without the foundation of solid reporting and editing cannot be supported. But rather than maintain that high level of journalistic excellence long admired in the Fourth Estate, the more conventional news media outlets are lowering their standards by hailing “Breaking News” when it isn’t necessarily so. Of course, most news departments now answer to a parent corporation that seems to be more interested in entertaining than informing so maybe we should be less than surprised.

News in print and, to a lesser degree, on television or radio will never be able to compete with the speed of the web. Their futures, though, are safe so long as they strive to maintain the appropriate standards. The internet is maturing and, as it does, many find that credibility is lacking from many sites. Will I pay for online news? If I have to (I’m not stupid, you know). Or perhaps I’ll renew my subscription to the newspaper if it includes some sort of online coordination. Whatever the final format, we all need timely and accurate information. Dressing it up as “Breaking” leads us only to a tomorrow filled with an ever-increasing level of cynicism.

Priorities

In perusing yesterday’s New York Times, I was struck by the number of times I thought to myself, “What are they trying to accomplish here?” It’s important to have priorities, but sometimes agendas collide and, when they do, the outcome is something less than noble. For instance:

A German diocese is under the bright lights for the mishandling of abuse while the current Pope was its archbishop. It seems that a priest was accused of molestation, entered therapy, and thereafter returned to his prior pastoral position. While Benedict admits to approving the therapy, a subordinate is taking full responsibility for the reassignment. I can’t help but wonder if someone is falling on his sword to protect higher-ups. This would be far from the first instance of such behavior, but the priority of protection seems misplaced with regard to truth and accountability.

The FCC is proposing a renewed commitment to providing high speed internet access to all areas of the country. There can be little argument that technology and the way we communicate is going in that direction and there can be little argument that we would all gain from the availability of DSL and the like. Nevertheless, companies entrenched in the business of providing computer, cable, television and telephone services are resisting this initiative. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they would be forced to upgrade their offerings or relax their grip on near-monopolistic enterprises. Money, in other words. (Or perhaps profits would be more appropriate.) It’s not that they’d make nothing, but only that they’d make less. With the overall gains that individuals and communities would realize, though, it seems that, once again, the priorities are bass-ackwards.

For the first time, South Africa (and Africa, in general) will host World Cup Soccer matches in June. Four games will be played in a new $137 million stadium near Nelspruit that is surrounded by some of the most deprived areas in the world. Mud houses and dirt roads are the norm. Once again, there is nothing new about splendid venues erected amid squalor, but yet again that nasty question about priorities rears up.

The Tea Party, it seems, is steering clear of divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Is it because these issues have no place in politics or because they’d just as soon get as many in their tent before turning to a more strident agenda? Bait and switch, in other words. And in a conservative-related story, the Texas Board of Education seemed to re-write history in establishing new text book guidelines that glorify Ronald Reagan while minimizing Thomas Jefferson. Historically, the Board held sway over the curricula in other states simply by virtue of the number of books Texas ordered. Now, with digital printing, one can only hope such partisanship can be kept within a state boundary. And in both cases, objectivity or honesty takes a lower priority to enrollment and the furthering of specific agendas.

Google seems to be at odds with China over censorship. The Chinese government seems bent on filtering the information available to its citizenry and Google, of course, specializes in all things informative. A no-brainer, right? Tell China to pound sand, pull out of the country, and trust in the creativity of the Chinese common-folk to establish avenues of unfettered access. Ouch! There’s that profit thing again. Oh well, what’s a little loss of freedom when compared to a boatload of yuan?

And finally, a soldier awarded the Silver Star for his meritorious actions during the battle of Wanat, Afghanistan is now subject to a reprimand for poor preparation in the days preceding the battle. WTF? Captain Matthew Meyer is the poor soul caught in this nightmare and, unlike the Catholic official taking one for the Pope, he is being scapegoated, pure and simple. Both scenarios obfuscate accountability, justice, and honor, but one is voluntary while the other is sacrificed in the name of expediency. While the volunteer may be seen as more “honorable”, I’d say we’re picking fly poop out of pepper because neither brings us closer to a responsible conclusion while producing innocent roadkill.

Pragmatism certainly seems to take a higher priority than more altruistic aims, doesn’t it? So should we all shrug and climb on board the “if I don’t do it, someone else will” train? I should hope not. If we lose our priorities and place right and wrong below more immediate and profitable agendas we serve only to hasten our descent into a world where “I” and “mine” are forever superior to “you”, “yours”, or “ours”.

March Madness

If only the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament was the most important issue of the day. Alas, the madness I refer to is a smattering of events that reflect, in various ways, the state of our society.

Recently, a captive Orca whale at Sea World killed an experienced trainer. Yes, I know that it occurred in February, but the discussion continues into March. And the discussion centers on the wisdom of using wild beasts to entertain the masses. On one side, were it not for zoos and other wildlife centers, our familiarity with critters would be minimal. So what? Well, without that familiarity, we don’t put a face on the beasts and their futures are far less assured. We learn of their value and role within the ecosystem. On the other side, though, do we need to see them flying through the air with humans on their back? Or on stage with two guys in Vegas? Or in one of three rings under the Big Top? There is a fine line between education and exploitation, profit and progress. One would think that we could put the welfare of all involved ahead of corporate coffers. Apparently, we have not come to that point yet. In the meantime, though, it is madness to be shocked when a captive turns on the captor. Nothing personal...simply the nature of the beast.

This past week, madness arose at the Pentagon where a man opened fire and wounded two police officers. John Bedell appeared to be a normal, well-dressed individual until he brandished his weapon and opened fire. He died from his wounds. Reports suggest he was suffering from a variety of mental disorders. Regardless, no one can refute the anti-Washington sentiment flowing freely through today’s conversation. Such language serves to inflame already simmering resentments and may sometime serve as the catalyst for those who are familiar with Mr. Bedell’s demons. His “madness” may have been multi-faceted, but today’s atmosphere of distrust and emotional rhetoric causes some to make the leap from rational to rabid. Again, to be surprised at such leaps is, in itself, madness.

Yet another form of madness appeared in the shape of harmless interaction between a father and his children. The father in question is an air traffic controller in the tower of New York’s Kennedy International Airport. He allowed his children to make routine transmissions to departing aircraft. He did not leave them unsupervised and more than likely rehearsed their lines well in advance. Nevertheless, he is now suspended (as is his supervisor) for this breach of protocol. Gadzooks! A child on the radio? This is tantamount to your Doctor’s child asking you to say “Ahhhh” as Dad examines your mouth. Or your attorney’s child objecting when prodded by Pop. Simple exclamations that have nothing to do with the overall efficiency or outcome of the proceedings. The FAA seems intent upon making an example of this controller. Why? They have been something less than successful in upgrading the equipment used by their controllers or the pay and benefits of the controller force. They do not seem as intent on attracting new controllers in the numbers required to replace an aging workforce or addressing the associated fatigue and shortage of manpower. Maybe this “bring your child to work” brouhaha is something they feel up to and they hope you don’t notice the elephants in the room while they swat at the mosquitoes. Madness? With a capital M!

Allow me to paraphrase “Man of LaMancha” when Don Quixote defines the greatest degree of madness as “seeing things as they are and not as they should be.” Perhaps the best thing to do is immerse ourselves in the roundball tourney if, for no other reason, to find some semblance of sanity. It sure seems to be in short supply as of late. And whether you’re a college hoops fan or not: take heart for seeing things as they should be.