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.