Quality Control

The control of quality generally refers to manufacturing processes to ensure a desirable end product. Those of you familiar with my thoughts know that I intend to put a twist on this term. I suggest that there is another, perhaps more important, definition: to ensure quality, we must control ourselves. “We” meaning you, me, and the rest of our society. Some behaviors may apply while others do not. Regardless, we need to take greater control over our physical and societal well-being or suffer the consequence of either a nanny-state or steady degradation.

Let’s start with our physical selves. We eat what we want to eat and when we want to eat it. We care not about nutritional information nor where our food came from nor whether it was properly processed. Burger King had it spot-on when they coined the phrase “have it your way” and we’ve taken that mantra to new heights. All of a sudden, seemingly, we are obese. Roughly 30% (more or less depending on location) of us are overweight. Yet we continue to gorge with nary a thought to the ramifications both to ourselves and those around us. Restaurants and such are averse to publicize the ingredients and nutritional data for their menus claiming that such regulatory intrusion is unwarranted. “We’re giving them what they want and the market will decide our fate”, they shout.

The tobacco industry is no different: it has known for decades of the deleterious effects of smoking yet claim that it is merely providing a product the customer wants. Alcohol? Same thing. The drug war continues with no end in sight and little hope of victory in its present form. Drug use in the U.S. remains high and we are the world’s best customer when it comes to illegal substances. The physical cost of drug addiction cannot be more clear and the social cost in crime and loss of productivity is equally destructive. Yet we continue to crave.

Within the greater, outside world (society) we spurn helmet laws yet ride our cycles without reasonable protection. We reject national programs such as universal health care yet fail to insure ourselves. This is all well and good until we suffer injuries from our lackadaisical ways and then expect the same previously despised organizations to come to our aid. We live in flood plains without flood insurance and ask for a federal helping hand when the river once again breeches its banks. We want a clean and safe Gulf of Mexico, but don’t want to stop drilling because we’d lose money.

We have stopped controlling ourselves, folks, and the quality of our lives is suffering as a result. We cannot look to companies or marketers for protection as they are only interested in convincing us that “new and improved” really means something of value. Without our self control we have only those that regulate our society (the government) to institute controls that may mitigate our shortsightedness. The idea of a nanny-state, however, doesn’t sit well in a free society, does it? No, but we must use that freedom to our benefit rather than fritter it away on hedonistic pursuits.

Small stuff, you say. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket and you want me to think twice about what I eat and how I live my life? Exactly! Because those choices we make directly affect how soon that hand-basket reaches its destination. Many of the poorer choices we’ve made over the years have resulted in various rules and regulations. The latest is legislation in an attempt to curb child obesity. It has stalled due to resistance from the food industry. What a shock.

Am I suggesting that we lead a spartan, puritanical life? Not in the least. But I urge everyone to think about the consequences of your daily choices. Fast food burgers and the like are fine from time to time, but a daily diet leads to a place where few of us would embrace. And the same applies to the things we watch or buy or rely upon to pass the time. Enjoy your life today, but keep an eye on tomorrow, too.

Intimidation

Anyone who tells you that they have never been intimidated is lying, plain and simple. Perhaps they have another word for it, but they’ve been in a situation where they accepted less than they deserved for fear of attention, retribution, appearance, or just plain uncertainty. We’ve all been there and we need to minimize our journeys into this zone where we allow others to take advantage of our momentary weaknesses.

Intimidation is an act that occurs only because one party allows it. That party being the individual cowed into a position of surrender. I cannot intimidate you without your permission and participation. Any attempt on my part to intimidate you is fruitless absent your cooperation. Without it, I’m out of luck. I may want to intimidate someone, but am disappointed should they refuse to play along.

With that in mind, look back and select those instances where you’ve been intimidated. Perhaps at work by a superior or, worse yet, a subordinate. How about as a customer dealing with a less-than-competent clerk. Intimidation can be seen within family units, too, as never-ending power struggles are waged between spouses, siblings, and anyone resting upon a limb of the family tree. Many of us are intimidated by officials (police, judges, politicians, etc.), but there is no real need for this based simply upon the fact that they represent authority. The question, though, is how to avoid being intimidated in these situations.

Well, how about learning to recognize them in the first place? When you expect someone to behave in a specific way and they show no interest in cooperating, they sometimes resort to an intimidating posture in the hopes that you will lower your demands. The posture may be body language, facial expression, tone of voice, or choice of words. Regardless, if the response leaves you on the defensive and beginning to think that you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time and asking for the wrong thing, you’ve been intimidated. Usually, these instances are acknowledged in the middle of the night when we sit up in bed and say, “You know what I should have said?” or “I should have done this or that”.

This realization, albeit ill timed, leads us to be better prepared to deal with similar instances in the future. Call it visualization if you wish, but being ready for someone that would rather you go away is essential in resisting the intimidation that precludes your early disengagement. Older folks have gained the reputation of being cranky or grouchy. I submit it is only their readiness to strongly oppose any and all attempts to intimidate them into a position of settling for less. They’ve heard all the excuses and have an arsenal of arguments ready to stymie those that would rather not. Hooray for them! Alright, hooray for us!

One common statement I’ve heard is the one that describes me as intimidating and, as a result, suggests that I am to blame for the problem. We’ve already established that I can intimidate no one without their permission, but the statement serves to change the subject from the matter at hand to my demeanor. Mission accomplished if you’re the clerk, subordinate, relative, or anyone else wanting to avoid a discussion of your failure to accommodate my request.

I urge you to stay strong in the presence of “You want me to do what?” or “I just started working here today.” or “That’s not my department.” or “I’m in charge. Why are you questioning my authority?” These are all phrases intended to intimidate you into either changing your request or going away altogether. And if you do, welcome to world of intimidation. For no good reason, you have altered your expectation. Are there times when a realignment of a request is in order? Of course. But in those instances, there is no angst growing within you. You’ve simply changed the scope of your demands to fit within the parameters that exist. You don’t go to a restaurant and expect an oil change, do you? Sometimes we ask without having all the facts and sometimes those facts change our perspective. Nothing wrong with that. No intimidation; just the readjustment of expectation based on rational thought.

This kinder, gentler approach to society has created a politically correct atmosphere where most everyone is afraid of making any demand upon anybody for fear of offense of some sort. This only ensures a slow degradation of the quality of our lives simply because we choose flight over fight. Review your requests and if they are reasonable, for god’s sake stick to your guns. And should you choose to seek out the individual responsible for your intimidation, you need look no further than the nearest mirror.

The Name of the Game

Funny how you just know about some things. When I heard of LeBron James’ one hour quasi-press conference last Thursday night I knew that would be my topic of the week. Relax: I’m not going to orate on the “decision”, but rather explore the larger picture and its ramifications.

But first, let me briefly orate: there is a philosophy in all of sport that promotes letting the game come to you. All too often, athletes chase their dream through various machinations that generally leave them short of the pinnacle they covet. Others, that let the game come to them, enjoy a more favorable legacy regardless of their personal achievements. LeBron has chased the dream. His impatience will forever tarnish whatever greatness the NBA has in store for him.

Now let’s move on to the bigger picture. LeBron is free to announce a one hour event during which he will name his future team. ESPN is free to provide the air time and hype it up as much as possible. Much has been written about the wisdom of either, but I’m left wondering why so many people tuned in. Ratings for this spectacle broke records previously held by other, more meaningful, sporting events. What’s up with that?

Our society has always sought out recreation as a diversion to the more mundane requirements of daily life. You know: work, school, and the like. It’s not called recreation by accident as the diversion-du-jour allows us to take a deep breath and re-create our energies before returning to those mundanities. Could it be that the proverbial tail is wagging the dog as society becomes more concerned with all-star ballots than November ballots? Do we use our smart phones to dumb us down as we choose mind-numbing games and social networks at the expense of news, productivity, and a generally more informed existence? Thursday night’s announcement would tend to bear that theory out.

Many of us can name the highest paid athlete or the latest celebrity to appear in court. Many can name the current Dancing With the Stars champion. Twenty thousand fans showed up in Rockefeller Center for Lady GaGa’s recent Today Show concert. How many know who Rockefeller was? How many can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Or any justice, for that matter. How about your elected representatives? You know: mayor, state reps, governor, senators, congressman, president. Shouldn’t these names be of more importance? Don’t these folks hold greater sway over our future?

Of course they do, but, as society becomes more isolated from their government, who can blame them for turning to more pleasurable pursuits? Call it a state of denial or perhaps an effort to find a positive moment in a day normally filled with disappointment and detours. Either way, we seem to be concentrating on the sublime while ignoring the substance. Sadly, many legislators prefer a disassociated electorate over an engaged one. Why? Well, it’s easier to do as they please if no one’s paying attention, isn’t it?

There’s nothing wrong with looking for a ray of sunshine or two in a dismal day, but overdoing that figurative sunshine wreaks the same damage to our mental state as an over-abundant dose of the literal sunshine on our skin cells. Feel free to divert your attention in an attempt to recapture that spark of creativity and energy, but be wary of spending too much time there. Let the LeBron’s and the Lohan’s, the Gibson’s and the GaGa’s, and the rest of the “celebrity” world go on about their business while you go on about yours. Drop in for a look now and again, but keep in mind that, while they are playing the fame game, your future lies in the success of a far more important contest: life.

(Second) Guessing Game

It seems safe to say that our political system has gone from a period of sophomoric partisanship to an all out attempt to bring any meaningful progress to a halt in the name of recapturing lost power. Presently, the Republican Party is playing the role of spoiler as they block legislative action and elect to second guess any decision made by any member of the Obama administration. While I find myself more philosophically aligned with the left than the right, I can hold out little hope that anything would be markedly different if the tables were turned (and someday in the not-too-distant-future they will be). Those on the outside have chosen to thwart any and all attempts to enact an agenda dear to the majority’s heart for fear, I imagine, that, god forbid, it might work. Anything else is lamented and suggestions are cast about that a better decision and hence a better result would have been possible had someone from the other party been in charge. Call it gridlock or whatever, but at the end of the day the electorate is left holding the bag as more and more would-be voters are turned off by the spectacle. Their shoulders are slumped and their feet scuffle along the pavement as they sigh and ask, “What can I do?”

Well, my home state of California may have come up with the answer: in last month’s election, the state passed a proposition that a) opens up primaries to all voters regardless of party affiliation and b) allows the top two vote getters to move on to the general election, once again regardless of party affiliation. In the past several primaries for state and federal office, a voter was forced to choose a party and then vote a ballot comprised of those specific candidates. Independents could choose a ballot prior to voting, but were similarly limited once that choice was made. As a result, primary voter turnout was sometimes very thin, especially if a given party had candidates running unopposed.

With this new system, we’ve really shaken up the status quo: party affiliation takes a back seat to substance and third party candidates are finally offered a level playing field. Special interest money must now be spread across a larger field with less chance of picking a winner and the major parties no longer have a grip on the throat of alternative ideas that neither wish to entertain. With all these ingredients, I can’t help but think that primary turnout will soar as more, not less, feel an opportunity to have a say in their governance.

And the general election will, as a result of the open primary, allow the top two contenders to face off. No, not the top Republican and top Democrat, the top two candidates, period. Maybe they’re both Republicans, or maybe both Democrats, or maybe neither. Who cares? We’ve got the two candidates that drew the most votes. What could be more representative than that? (I know it’s hard to believe, but the two major parties were the major opponents of this proposition.)

The prospect of a wide open elective process represents a clean break from business as usual. It clears the back rooms of stale cigar smoke and brings a ray of sunshine into the cloak room that might finally introduce a cadre of individuals more interested in compromise and progress than intransigence and stalemate.

My hope is that other states, their voters, and their representatives will be watching (some with trepidation and others with temerity). This is an idea with the potential of igniting the revolution in Washington that we’ve heard so much about and awaited for so long. And bloodless, at that.