Jobbed

It’s hard to turn on any news program without hearing about jobs. Good jobs, bad jobs, no jobs...take your pick. Everyone has a reason and a cure for the continued high rate of unemployment. The “job” in these discussions is a noun. Let’s spend a few moments talking about the verb: jobbed, as in “being jobbed”.

This term is an informal way of describing the act of cheating or betrayal. Archaically, it refers to turning a public office or a position of trust to private advantage. Hardly positive notes, but who can argue that they are not germane to what is going on around us.

President Obama recently nixed the Keystone pipeline project to the dismay of those tied to interests of the oil industry (Republicans, generally). This project, they argue, would produce many jobs that desperate Americans need. And look at the additional jobs the pipeline could provide farther down the road: HazMat personnel, environmental engineers, and countless others to be tasked with cleaning up an inevitable spill.

Washington state’s Hanford Site was created to produce plutonium for the first atomic bomb. Seven decades later, the cleanup continues with little hope of ever restoring the environment to an acceptable condition (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/environment/story/2012-01-25/hanford-nuclear-plutonium-cleanup/52622796/1). Talk about a jobs creator!

California’s Governor Jerry Brown, on the other hand, is being demonized by some (Republicans) for continuing to press for a high speed rail project. This is a jobs creator, isn’t it? Why is there little bipartisan support? No, it’s not about jobs. It’s about being jobbed.

Wichita, KS knows first hand as they fought for Boeing’s USAF tanker project while the company assured the city leaders that such a contract would ensure Boeing’s continued presence in their city. Well, Boeing got the contract, but now it seems as though “unforeseen events” have forced the company to soon shutter the Wichita plants. This is jobbed with a capital “J”, wouldn’t you say? Many employee groups have taken cuts in pay and benefits as their employers promise to avoid bankruptcy only to find that the filing follows shortly thereafter.

We’re all being jobbed by someone, at sometime, for some ulterior motive. The politicians (left and right) seek to warn us that voting for any third party candidate is a wasted vote when, in fact, it only threatens their oligarchy. Corporations sit on large sums of capital and state they will hire only when consumer confidence returns. The problem is that the confidence will rise only after jobs are more plentiful. CEO’s know full well that many of the jobs lost over the past several years are not coming back, but they find it hard to state the obvious.

Banks find it more profitable to loan their money to the federal government rather than entrepreneurs and others seeking to grow (or start) their businesses. And with the Fed promising to keep rates low for the next couple of years, financial institutions see lending to anyone but Uncle Sam as fiscally unsound.

We don’t have a jobs shortage, but rather an expertise shortage as technology renders many positions passé and new positions unfilled due to lack of qualified applicants. Education isn’t stressed, though. Just jobs and who can create them as if they were lying in the bottom of a black top-hat alongside the white rabbit.

Until we realize the path to lower unemployment lies primarily in retraining and retooling for 21st century opportunities, we will continue to fall prey to the jobs mantra espoused by those looking to maintain their status quo while limiting the advancement of those they profess to represent. They’re jobbing us, in other words.

The jobless rate hovers near 9% while the jobbed rate is closer to 100%. The former is tied to our economy while the latter can be traced to the various and sundry leaders, corporate and political, that choose personal gain over a higher ideal. We’ll all be in a better place when both numbers come down.  

War is Heck

Normally, I am not prone to write about the hottest topic of any given week because much has already been addressed. But this week’s story of GI’s urinating on enemy corpses has caused me to make an exception. Yes, I’m retired Air Force and no, I did not participate in any hostile theaters (in after Nam and out before Gulf War 1). Nevertheless, as a reasonably intelligent observer, I feel qualified to render an opinion.

Have you seen “Platoon” or “Apocalypse Now”? Granted, they are Hollywood interpretations of war, but the brutality depicted is representative of the duty involved. War isn’t hell, I’d say. It’s worse. In the wars from Viet Nam through today,  young soldiers have been asked to successfully combat a force comprised of men, women, and children. These enemy combatants wear no identifiable uniform so they cannot easily be separated from more normal, non-threatening civilians.

Regardless, it falls upon the soldier’s shoulders to quickly identify and neutralize any threat. This would be hard enough when fighting an organized, uniformed opponent. How can one succeed in today’s arena and emerge unscathed? It is no coincidence that more and more returning troops suffer from PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder).

But can’t these same soldiers suffer from PTSD at the end of a fire fight? Or after seeing friends and comrades dismembered or killed by roadside bombs and the like? Is it too far a leap of faith to believe that some internal trigger is pulled shortly after the shooting stops and the animal we needed them to be a few minutes ago lives on for a few more?

It is now common practice to embed reporters with troops in the hope of bringing the true nature of war into every living room. But, as Jack Nicholson’s character in “A Few Good Men” stated: “You can’t handle the truth!” And neither can we if we are to single out similar good men for falling prey to the hellish nature of war.

Do you believe that atrocities occurred in the Civil War? Or WW I or II? How about Korea? I do. They weren’t covered as they are now and politicians and generals are quick to condemn such acts and their perpetrators as anomalies when, deep in their hearts, they know that the monsters they created are simply victims of that training.

War is a 24/7 monster. It never sleeps and, due to its very nature, is an atrocity as soldiers are expected to kill other folks with whom they have no quarrel in the name of national security or national pride or for a safer world. Are there just wars? I think so, but that doesn’t make them any more civilized or immune from acts of seemingly atrocious behavior.

Instances that apparently run counter to the high standards of our armed forces should be acknowledged and dealt with. Perhaps those involved should be removed from the battle field or even removed from the service. Their fate, however, is best left to peers within the military who are intimately familiar with the emotional toll of combat. For society-at-large to condemn their behavior while politicians demand court-martial and incarceration, though, shows nothing more than a hypocritical, feigned innocence on the part of those that know better. And that is the greatest atrocity of all.

The Three R's (Updated)

In the beginning, there were rules (the first R). And they were good. But then people decided that the rules were not for them. This led to regulations (the second R). Regulations were enacted by legislators at various levels and were nothing more than a formalized codification of the rules that included consequences for violation. We know them as laws, or statutes, if you prefer.

With the advent of regulations we witnessed the introduction of regulators. No, they’re not the third R. Rather, they are an adjunct to the regulations for without those to enforce existing laws they becomes meaningless.

And finally, there is us, you and I, and our reliance on the regulators to enforce the regulations that were enacted to keep us orderly and safe. Yes, reliance is the third R and perhaps the most important.

Let’s look at a specific example: traffic. In the days when walking and horses were primary means of transportation traffic was pretty much controlled through “rules of the road”. Keep to the right, pass on the left, and so forth. It is hard to imagine anyone walking directly into someone else nor a horse to collide with another equine simply because a rule wasn’t followed 

Cars, however, turned out to be an entirely different animal. They had no sense of self-preservation and would careen blindly into other objects if their drivers set them in that direction. All of a sudden, rules weren’t sufficient to maintain an orderly flow. And that’s when traffic laws came onto the scene in the hopes of mandating a greater civility and predictability when going from A to B. And fines for those that continued to believe that the rules (laws) were meant for someone else.

The regulators in this case are the police or Sheriffs or Highway Patrol that “regulate” the enforcement of the traffic laws. And we have come to rely on these officers to do just that and for good reason. That being the fact that we can safely assume our daily driving will nor be met with collisions and other highly undesirable outcomes at the hands of our fellow motor vehicle operators.

Lately, though, we are being led to believe that industries can regulate themselves thus relieving the government from all of those messy inspection processes. This will save us  tax money while ensuring a continued safe environment in which to exist. And who doesn’t want a smaller government?

One need look no further than the Wall Street debacle to question this self-regulation hypothesis. Or how about e-coli and salmonella alerts? Or the BP spill in the Gulf of Mexico? Financial, food supply, or fuel...take your pick. All are examples of this new “self examination” mantra that promises much, but apparently delivers little. As such, how can we rely on any level of acceptable risk when the regulators are taken out of the equation?

A simple answer: we can’t. So when you hear any politico endorsing such streamlining of government, where regulations are disguised as red-tape that we’re all better off without, think long and hard before signing on to such a plan. There’s a good reason for these independent examiners. It would be nice to be able to rely on every corporation or industry or executive to do what’s best for society regardless of profits. Unfortunately, we have a bit of evolving to do before we attain that level. And, in the meantime, it’s up to our regulators, inspectors, and other monitors to ensure that what should be happening is, indeed, happening. Think of us as the chickens. Now who do you want to guard the henhouse?

Que Sera, Sera

Some of my older readers may recognize “Que Sera, Sera” as a song popularized by Doris Day. Loosely translated, it is Spanish for “what will be, will be”. A warm, cozy philosophy should one be wrapped in a nostalgic mood, but far from helpful in today’s real world.

It strikes me that the more one is inclined to believe in this mantra, the more faith plays a role in their life. God’s will is a powerful vehicle where one can cede control over the future and explain good and bad events by simply claiming that the Lord wished it to be. But our free will is god-given, isn’t it? And free will provides us the tools with which to exert a bit of control over our destiny. No, it won’t hold back floods or fire, but making good choices generally leads to better outcomes.

Can we give god the wheel while still making decisions that best serve our own purposes? Perhaps, but a better question might be whether god has any interest in driving? As a deist, I can only claim belief in some sort of higher power, but stop well short of claiming such self-importance as to warrant its interest in my personal plights. No, my higher power is somewhere on the back nine, hoping that the world will muddle through somehow.

I’m especially intrigued by those that rely on god’s will until that will seems to be working against them and they then turn to the secular world for solutions. Take, for instance, a couple of strong faith that has been unable to conceive. Their inability to have children is god’s will, apparently, but many turn to artificial methods in attempting an end run around the divine edict. Where’s the “que sera” in that? I’m sure we could find numerous other mutations of blind faith that seek other options when god’s will is no longer acceptable.

“It is what it is” could be called the common-day replacement for the quaint Spanish adage. Not as faith-based to be sure, but still portraying a relinquishing of control over events. Once again, we’re out of luck in times of flood and fire, but just think about how many things in our daily lives that could be improved by our involvement.

Activism, in other words. Regardless of the scale, most things improve when ordinary folks get involved. I’ve written many times of how the greatest social and political accomplishments rose from the efforts of grass-roots movements and fail to see any flaw in that position. Would the Arab Spring have occurred without the protests from the streets of Cairo or Tripoli? I doubt it. And the Occupy movement, albeit seemingly leaderless, has created a greater awareness of the fact that most things within our financial system remain unchanged.

So, as a New Year’s Resolution, how about a little less “que sera, sera” and a little more “que sera es toca a nosotros" (what will be is up to us).