Q's (No A's)

In the almost three years of this weekly endeavor, my main objective has been to initiate a discussion in the setting of your choice. Whether the dining room table with friends and family or the lunch room with coworkers, without the exchange of ideas and exploration of possibilities there is little hope for progress.

With that in mind, today I ask questions, but offer no answers. I leave that to you, dear readers, in the hope that you’ll reintroduce or at least reinvigorate the passion in your conversations. Expect nothing but question marks from here.

How can Congress pass laws that do not apply to its members?

Why do we, the voters, consider only two parties when choosing our elected representatives? Is there a substantive difference any longer?

How can we advance as a society when more and more of our citizens are left behind economically, intellectually, and medically?

How much money is enough?

What is an acceptable unemployment rate?

What is a fair tax?

How do we win the war on drugs?

Should public service (politics) be a career?

If hetero, Is gay sex cheating? And, if gay, is hetero sex cheating?

Should there be a mandatory two year national service commitment for all?

Do corporations have a morale responsibility to society? If not, should they?

Is government oversight necessary to ensure a clean environment, safe drugs, or untainted food?

Does the fact that America is the only industrialized country not providing a level of health care to its citizens mean that the rest of the industrialized world is socialistic?

If you regard your life as a success, did you succeed without help?

If you regard your life as a failure, is there someone else to blame?

Is voting for the winner more important than voting for principle?

Should election day be expanded to encompass several days? If so, how many and which ones?

Should there be a specified campaign season?

Should there be a specified Christmas season?

Is the Post Office becoming obsolete?

Are e-cards as personal as traditional ones?

Which has more control over our daily lives: the President or Congress?

Are children more undisciplined or are parents more permissive?

Does a citizen have a real-world need for an assault rifle?

How is “special interest group” defined and what makes up the membership?

Are wars necessary? If so, how is winning a war defined?

Does the TSA make air travel safer?

Should government workers be forbidden from unionization? If so, how is “government” defined?

Should strikes be outlawed?

Which is more important: convenience or accomplishment?

Who should provide seed money for new, unproven technologies?

Do computers, smart phones, etc. control us or do we control them?

Would you rather text, email, talk on the phone, or meet face-to-face?

Where do the bullets go when shot in the air by rejoicers?

Wow! It’s amazing what comes to mind when only considering the Q’s. I’m sure that some A’s will crop up in the various conversations we find ourselves daily. While the particular answer may be meaningful, even more important is the dialogue that brings it about. Notice the rise in heart rate and how good you feel when moving beyond requisite small-talk? Have fun and let me know what answers you find.

Losing the Gray

I received a forwarded email a few days ago. I don’t care for forwards and rarely pay them much attention. This particular piece caught my eye, though, and after reading it I was strongly moved to respond. But why limit my wrath to the select few that were on the mailing list when I could share it with many more? Here is the first portion of the message:

Although some may feel this is political in nature, I am more inclined to see it as good old fashioned common sense, and that is the spirit in which I share it.

 A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

I was dumbstruck at how dumb this girl’s father was. Didn’t he know the difference between charity and taxation? His example clearly falls in to the former category, not the latter, because his daughter is giving up an individually acquired product to another individual for their personal use. Taxation does, indeed, provide for those less fortunate, but it also provides many things we all use: highways, defense, clean air and water. The list goes on...


What if Audrey had a 2.0 GPA because her mother suffered from Alzheimer's and she was forced to miss many classes. And what if both girls were seeking admittance to a graduate program that mandated a 3.0 GPA? Would it be wrong to donate one point off of the 4.0 so both could continue their education? Regardless, the act would have been one of charity and one to proud of.

The email went on to finish thusly (I added the numbers for clarity):

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

1. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

2. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

3. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

4. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

5. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

6. If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

7. If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

Well, I forwarded it to you.

And the author claims to represent “good old fashioned common sense” instead of politics? Conservative vs Liberal is nothing but political and serves only to pigeonhole and divide us further. As for common sense, how about this:

1. Whoever wants or needs a gun can have one. But assault weapons are not needed for sport or home protection. They are needed solely to inflict maximum carnage in a short period of time before the shooter is wrestled to the ground.

2. Eating meat is not necessarily bad. Eating too much meat, among many other things, is bad on many fronts. Disseminating the harmful effects of meat, or any other substance, serves to create a better awareness in us all as we make our daily life-style choices.

3. Some are down-and-out due to their own poor choices. Others are not. To treat both equally is shortsighted, serves no good purpose and costs us all in many ways.

4. Snarky, vehement statements on television and radio are made for ratings and offer nothing good to a debate on issues between thinking participants.

5. The separation of church and state is a good thing for many reasons. To expect it would make our forefathers proud.

6. The lack of health care costs us and our society dearly in lost time, money, and opportunity.

7. There is nothing funny when attempting to turn one against another based on some cockamamie black and white position when, in fact, the real solutions lie somewhere in the middle. You know: that gray area where no one wants to tread. Sadly, that’s where we should all be if we’re serious about finding a reasonable way out of our present-day problems.

Are there folks who are black or white, one side or the other, with no ability to grasp the concept of compromise? I’m sure of it, but that is no reason to encourage their position born of narrow-minded, brainless, sound-bite samplings that over-simplify while making it harder to find common ground, let alone common sense.

(And no, I didn’t forward it.)

The Seeds of Reform

The “Occupation” protests are picking up steam and I am left wondering what brought them about and how the end game will be played. My first question is who, exactly, is participating?

Without a doubt, some are anarchists, plain and simple. They are in favor of dismantling the financial system with no vision of replacing it with anything at all. And they may be the most vocal and, as such, bear the greatest responsibility for getting the ball rolling. That’s OK, you know. The Viet Nam War protesters were initially comprised of ultra-doves, if you will. Their vision of no war, never, nowhere was overly simplistic, but played a major role in spreading the movement to virtually every nook and cranny of the country.

There are others coming to realize that the middle class, or at least what we’d come to call the middle class, was shrinking. In fact, the perceived earning power of this group has stagnated or decreased over the past decade or so, but was hidden through the creative financing tools of home equity loans and such. Now, deeply in debt and/or underwater on their home loans, they’re now seeking some retribution from the powers-that-be (in this instance, the financial industry).

Added to the mix are students and recent college graduates that can find no jobs and no hope in a stalled economy. These are the least noble of the demonstrators, I’d say, because they seem to feel entitled to a good job at a good wage simply because they went to college. If only they were the first to find the field they chose four years ago is no longer offering the greatest promise or reward. In light of their “me first” frame of mind, though, it should come as no surprise that they’ve joined the fray based on some semblance of unfairness.

Regardless of the position held by any single demonstrator, is the collective angst justified and well-aimed? I’d say so. Big bank bailouts have had little or no effect on the outlook of the average American. All the while, their balance sheets have returned the the robust figures of 2007. And the gap between the have’s and have not’s has never been greater. But now what?

First of all, are you still giving the big banks your money? Some of us are tied to them through mortgages, etc., but some are not. And those that aren’t should move their funds to smaller, more responsible institutions. (I left B of A after their refusal to account for bail out expenditures and am now wed to Wells Fargo. Yes, they took a bail out, too, but only when it was forced upon them. Uncle Sam didn’t want us to be able to identify the weaker sisters, it seems.) 

The only way to change the shape of the financial industry, though, is by legislating greater restrictions and closer oversight. They’ve proven that they are unfit to police themselves and there are no other options absent instilling some sort of corporate conscience into the upper echelons of management. (Good luck on that one.) Which means a degree of political activism is required from each demonstrator and anyone sympathetic to their plight.

I’ve recently suggested not voting for any incumbent nor donating any money to any campaign in an attempt to weed out career politicos and the influence that big donations ensure. Another option is not voting for any candidate running for a particular office should you find none acceptable. This is kind of the “none of the above” approach, but would speak volumes if, say only a third of the voters cast a vote for a particular position. Don’t confuse this with not going to the polls in the first place. By doing that, you’ve simply identified yourself as a non-participant and that’s the last thing you should want.

Another option is to step outside the traditional political parties and their trappings and log on to AmericansElect.org. This movement is perhaps the best chance we’ve seen in  a long time to alter the way we choose a president. If you are the least bit put off by “politics as usual”, you owe it to yourself to at least drop by the website for a look-see. What’ve you got to lose?

Should the occupiers grow tired of assembling and simply go home and sit back down in front of their nearest electronic display, then their heartfelt demonstrations will have been for naught. Like it or not, the only solution to the banking fiasco is through our political system and the only way to change that is from the ground up. Grass roots efforts will always change systems far faster than relying on any group of folks enjoying the fruits of the status quo.

So let’s all hope that something special is germinating and let’s all take pride in assisting  its growth and maturation by getting reacquainted with asking questions and doing our best to change the way Washington does business. Occupying Wall Street and other venues is a good start, but to be successful we must also occupy the voting booth.

The Seeds of Reform

The “Occupation” protests are picking up steam and I am left wondering what brought them about and how the end game will be played. My first question is who, exactly, is participating?

Without a doubt, some are anarchists, plain and simple. They are in favor of dismantling the financial system with no vision of replacing it with anything at all. And they may be the most vocal and, as such, bear the greatest responsibility for getting the ball rolling. That’s OK, you know. The Viet Nam War protesters were initially comprised of ultra-doves, if you will. Their vision of no war, never, nowhere was overly simplistic, but played a major role in spreading the movement to virtually every nook and cranny of the country.

There are others coming to realize that the middle class, or at least what we’d come to call the middle class, was shrinking. In fact, the perceived earning power of this group has stagnated or decreased over the past decade or so, but was hidden through the creative financing tools of home equity loans and such. Now, deeply in debt and/or underwater on their home loans, they’re now seeking some retribution from the powers-that-be (in this instance, the financial industry).

Added to the mix are students and recent college graduates that can find no jobs and no hope in a stalled economy. These are the least noble of the demonstrators, I’d say, because they seem to feel entitled to a good job at a good wage simply because they went to college. If only they were the first to find the field they chose four years ago is no longer offering the greatest promise or reward. In light of their “me first” frame of mind, though, it should come as no surprise that they’ve joined the fray based on some semblance of unfairness.

Regardless of the position held by any single demonstrator, is the collective angst justified and well-aimed? I’d say so. Big bank bailouts have had little or no effect on the outlook of the average American. All the while, their balance sheets have returned the the robust figures of 2007. And the gap between the have’s and have not’s has never been greater. But now what?

First of all, are you still giving the big banks your money? Some of us are tied to them through mortgages, etc., but some are not. And those that aren’t should move their funds to smaller, more responsible institutions. (I left B of A after their refusal to account for bail out expenditures and am now wed to Wells Fargo. Yes, they took a bail out, too, but only when it was forced upon them. Uncle Sam didn’t want us to be able to identify the weaker sisters, it seems.) 

The only way to change the shape of the financial industry, though, is by legislating greater restrictions and closer oversight. They’ve proven that they are unfit to police themselves and there are no other options absent instilling some sort of corporate conscience into the upper echelons of management. (Good luck on that one.) Which means a degree of political activism is required from each demonstrator and anyone sympathetic to their plight.

I’ve recently suggested not voting for any incumbent nor donating any money to any campaign in an attempt to weed out career politicos and the influence that big donations ensure. Another option is not voting for any candidate running for a particular office should you find none acceptable. This is kind of the “none of the above” approach, but would speak volumes if, say only a third of the voters cast a vote for a particular position. Don’t confuse this with not going to the polls in the first place. By doing that, you’ve simply identified yourself as a non-participant and that’s the last thing you should want.

Another option is to step outside the traditional political parties and their trappings and log on to AmericansElect.org. This movement is perhaps the best chance we’ve seen in  a long time to alter the way we choose a president. If you are the least bit put off by “politics as usual”, you owe it to yourself to at least drop by the website for a look-see. What’ve you got to lose?

Should the occupiers grow tired of assembling and simply go home and sit back down in front of their nearest electronic display, then their heartfelt demonstrations will have been for naught. Like it or not, the only solution to the banking fiasco is through our political system and the only way to change that is from the ground up. Grass roots efforts will always change systems far faster than relying on any group of folks enjoying the fruits of the status quo.

So let’s all hope that something special is germinating and let’s all take pride in assisting  its growth and maturation by getting reacquainted with asking questions and doing our best to change the way Washington does business. Occupying Wall Street and other venues is a good start, but to be successful we must also occupy the voting booth.

One and Done

It seems that the mid-term elections were held just last week and November 2012 is still more than a year away. Regardless, after affording us barely a chance to take a deep breath we are once again awash with debates, interviews, and commercials as Republican challengers for the White House reach full stride. Does it ever end?

I’ve long supported a one term, six year Presidency and wrote about it in my book. That format would require a Constitutional Amendment and what with today’s gridlock and bigger fish to fry, I hold out little hope that we’ll see such legislation proposed anytime soon. With that in mind, why don’t we take a wider view.

Throwing the bums out has always made for interesting political diatribes, but how about imposing a single term for all politicos at all levels. No need for additional legislation; we only need to refuse to vote for any incumbent at any time for any office. Howard Schultz, Starbuck’s CEO, has proposed that no one contribute to any political campaign until such time that Congress provides a comprehensive plan for deficit reduction. Why not build on that and eliminate donations altogether. True, some will still support favorite sons, but most cash streams will slow to a trickle.

And when election day comes around, we vote for anyone other than the incumbent. Think of it: soon our elected leaders will come to realize that their political “career” is severely limited and may well start doing their job instead of non-stop fund raising and campaigning.

The Founding Fathers assembled from different regions and vocations. And after serving their country for a period of time, they returned home and got on with their livelihoods. Isn’t it past time to ask our current politicians to do the same? They’ll resist, of course, and hope that after a few weeks we’ll be on to another pressing issue. After all, why expect them to limit their own futures?

And so it falls to us, you and I, to withhold our monies and our votes from any office holder regardless of how well of a job we think they’re doing. True, there are some shining examples of selfless individuals in politics, but the system is what we’re trying to change. And, to do that, we must clean house at every electoral opportunity regardless of our affection for a particular representative.

Perhaps, over time, a reinvented Congress will entertain a single term for the president and congressional personnel. (Senate and House seats could be staggered so a single state would not undergo complete change within one election.) No worries about re-election, no need to take time for campaigning, and fewer big bucks from lobbyists seeking access and special consideration.

C’mon folks: keep your money in your pockets and vote for someone new at every chance. There are daily pleas for politicos to put the nation ahead of personal advancement. Shouldn’t we put our country ahead of our personal favorites? We can change the way government works simply by changing the way we participate. To think that the powerful will voluntarily relinquish their grip on the reins of governance will only guarantee their continued job security.