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.