It's NOT Just You!

Full Circle

2012-02-13T10:03:00.001-08:00

As we age, we find previously outdated items coming back into vogue. Paisley ties, for instance. I can remember wearing them in high school (late 1960’s) along with paisley shirts. There may have even been paisley pants, but I’m pretty sure I never wore a pair. Countless other examples can be found in music and movies. Some things, though, don’t make a comeback. I’m thinking that the telephone, or at least its influence, is on the wane.

If you’re over 50 you can recall party lines and the “wonder” of long-distance calling. Your grandparents may have had a two piece phone or maybe even the old one piece with a crank on the side that hung on the wall. The telephone. What a wonder.

In earlier times one had to rely on hand-written letters from family members to stay connected and business correspondence, while centered on the typewrite, had to similarly rely on the postman. The advent of the telephone brought up to the minute news from far away that included items missing from the written word: inflection and emotion. The ringing of a phone conjured up imminent greetings from afar and household members would race to be the first to hear from the other end of the line.

Over the past twenty years or so, the phone has evolved from a beloved part of everyone's day into something to be avoided. Caller ID became the norm as we wanted to know who in the hell was calling before we committed to a simple “hello”. And email made it possible to avoid any conversation without going back to writing, stamping, and mailing letters.

Texting is now considered to be the accepted form of communication complete with a whole new lexicon. No superfluous letters or thoughts. Terse and pretty much unemotional, texting has been adopted by much of society as the best way to reach out and touch someone. Parents have gone so far as to say that they text because it is the only way to communicate with their kids. This leads me to wonder who the parent really is, but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.

So, within in the last sixty years or so, we’ve gone from a reasonably isolated society to one that was better connected by the telephone to our current state where we choose to remain isolated by relying, once again, on the written word. It has become our choice rather than a necessity and it speaks volumes (pun intended).

I’ve often diagnosed society’s ills as resulting from a failure to share our convictions with others. In so doing, we adapt them to new information or adopt others. Our conviction feeds directly to our expectations and, if they are high, we expect more from our environment. And that is generally a good thing. Without high expectations the quality of our lives slowly, yet surely, declines as we recite the “it could be worse” and “at least I have a something-or-other” mantras.

Sending an email or text does not spell disaster for society, but using it as a first choice of communication won’t do us much good. Last week, I was at my computer and received an email from an old friend. I replied and received a reply almost immediately. OK, so he knows I’m home and available, but he continues to rely on his keyboard rather than dialing my number. (I replied once more, but refrained from a subsequent one to his next note.) Why didn’t I pick up my phone? Well, he initiated the “conversation” so I left it to him to decide. We both lost out though, I’d say, on the chance of a side note or segue into another topic. We didn’t share a laugh or a sigh or anything else of merit. A simple exchange of words with nothing added. Sad.

I can live with paisley going back out of style, but I mourn the continued erosion of our desire to hear another human voice and share thoughts and ideas different than our own. How else do we grow and adapt to the ever changing world around us?

Harry Chapin’s trademark song was “Circle” in which he described all things as coming ‘round again. I can’t help but see the old rotary dial on telephones of another era in thinking of never-to-be-had chats and the realization that this may be one instrument destined for obscurity.

Protection Racket

2012-02-06T08:34:00.000-08:00

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, it usually refers to a local gang or wise guy offering protection from harm in return for money. Extortion, in other words, because this same individual will cause the harm should one be reluctant to pay. Unfortunately, we are all involved in another kind of protection racket where we provide funds to institutions expecting them to be there should we need protection from costly events in our lives. Specifically, banks and insurance companies.

While the banking industry has borne the glare of the spotlight in the past several years, the insurance companies were ever-present, lurking in the background, collecting premiums while devising methods to avoid the paying of claims. More than ready to take our funds, but when it comes time to ask for something in return we find that they are not nearly as interested.

Do you know that many major auto insurers will summarily drop a policy holder for a DUI conviction? The driver may have a spotless record yet this one blemish exiles them to lesser known companies with, of course, higher rates. The higher rates can be understood in light of the gravity of the offense, but to toss a client to the curb is cruel (though not unusual) punishment.

If your home lies in what is classified as a fire zone you may find your long term insurance provider unable to provide any future coverage. After all, you may one day have a claim and they’d rather just collect your premiums without entertaining such a payout. California, by and large, is considered a fire zone. Florida? Well, that’s a hurricane zone and we’ve seen how many were unable to obtain insurance for their homes in the past several years. Having enjoyed years of premiums, some companies now find it more profitable to cut and run before claims start rolling in.

As you can see, these examples paint a pretty good likeness to the gangster on the corner asking for money while guaranteeing little in return. It is a racket, albeit a legal one, that creates a façade of “good hands” or “good neighbor” while plotting to deny as many claims as possible. And we all know that should a claim be paid it will be at the last possible moment after all other machinations have failed.

The worst part lies in the fact that we have little choice in the matter. True, we can take our insurance needs from one provider to the next, but if they’re all cut from the same bolt of cloth we have accomplished little in trying to move the ball more to the center of the field. Sadly, as we take our business out the door, someone else is bringing theirs in.

Saddest of all, perhaps, is that the various and sundry financial and insurance conglomerates know of our quandary, know that their is little to be done about it, and continue on their present course of legit racketeering. Our only hope lies in an outsider who can rein in these practices. We know these folks as regulators and they normally represent a government agency. This should give one pause the next time a conversation turns to wanting less government in thinking about the latest effort to deal with a bank or insurance company.

And for those that feel banks and insurance providers are, indeed, conducting business in a responsible manner, I ask that you locate as many as possible when in a major metropolitan area. It shouldn’t be too hard: they’re usually the tallest buildings.

Jobbed

2012-01-29T21:00:00.000-08:00

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

2012-01-16T08:20:00.000-08:00

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)

2012-01-09T08:26:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-02T08:11:00.000-08:00

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).

A Christmas Thought

2011-12-26T11:00:00.000-08:00

Christmas: the one day each year where we pause to reflect on our past and gather up our hope for the future. And to cement the deal, in a week we’ll formalize our hopes into resolutions that generally fall by the wayside before Punxsutawney Phil takes his bow in February.

Why is that, do you think? Could it be that we envision large scale scenarios such as world peace or clean energy? What if we narrowed our hopes down to a few that we could each handle individually? How about kindness to strangers? A cliché, I know, but can you remember the last time you held the door for the next customer or asked the bus boy how he was doing?

Messengers seem to be fair game, too as we metaphorically squeeze their shoes for enforcing policies created by the higher-ups. Clerks and others on the lower rungs of the corporate ladder are tasked with giving us minimal service. Why take it out on them? Maybe we need to take the extra time in getting a manager, asking for an explanation, and seeing how the true instigator enjoys tight shoes.

No, there are many things we can do every day that might lead to a more civilized society. Over-simplified? Perhaps, but I don’t think so. Try it out and let me know what you think.

A Corporate Christmas Newsletter

2011-12-19T06:53:00.000-08:00

I’ve made no secret of my aversion to Christmas newsletters that invariably show up within perfectly acceptable holiday cards. I’ve wondered of late, though, why corporate Christmas newsletters are rare, if not entirely unheard of. Perhaps it is due to the current state of corporate mentality and, as evidence, I submit an entirely fictitious holiday newsletter from American Airlines to its employees. Why American? Well, I’m quite familiar with the corporation and its recent foray into bankruptcy makes for a logical candidate. Unfortunately, I can’t help but think that most, if not all, corporate executives have similar viewpoints.

Dear Fellow Employees,

It’s that time of year again and there is much to cover as 2011 proved to be quite eventful. We started off with a new greeting (We’re Glad You’re Here) and couldn’t help but think that this new verbiage would make a big difference in our bottom line.

And, boy, did we grow! Not in the traditional way by hiring and expanding from within: that would take too long. So, just like adoptive parents, we entered into agreements with Japan Air Lines, WestJet, Qantas, AirBerlin, and Cathay Pacific while expanding our ongoing relationships with British Airways, Iberia, and, of course, our friends at American Eagle. And Presto! We’ve grown by leaps and bounds without adding one single employee to our close-knit family here at AA.

We also handed out awards for improved customer service like they were going out of style. It’s hard to imagine how stations could improve what with a well paid, highly motivated group of employees ever confident in the course we’ve chosen to guarantee continued success. Nevertheless, many found a way to “do more with less” and that’s what family is all about. We look forward to the day when they’ll be able to do everything with nothing.

There were some challenges, too: bad weather and resulting cancellations, lawsuits with Sabre and other online ticket agencies looking for ways to poison the special, lucrative association we enjoy with would-be passengers and, of course, continued quarterly losses. Jeez, you’d think that we were trying to lose money! It’s not our fault, you know. High fuel prices, competition, and other unforeseen events conspired against our tried and true formula for profitability (maintained over the past decade or so).

No family is without black sheep and there is always a relative or two that seems to upset the apple cart whenever possible. And some of our pilots filled that role nicely when many chose to retire in September and October. We can’t think of any good reason why they would choose to leave the AA family behind, but leave they did. And they asked for their retirement in one large lump sum as if we couldn’t be trusted to dole out their pensions in a monthly annuity. Such mistrust threatens the core of any family and we are no different.

So, with only a paltry sum $4.5 billion in our account, we sought the help of a family counselor. Yes, some would call him a bankruptcy judge, but what good is served with such harsh words? We can now turn this challenge into an opportunity as we realize that we can all share good times with fellow employees much longer than ever envisioned. And we’re happy to announce that some of our family will be able to spend more time with their families as we readjust our workforce.

Better yet, just last week we gained FAA approval to use iPads in the cockpit! This will allow our pilots to remove much weight from their kit bags and ease the stress and strain on their backs. This will come in quite handy as medical benefits are reduced. We’re also looking at removing transportation from employee parking lots to the terminals. What better way to stay in shape than a brisk walk before settling in for a rewarding day’s work? And who doesn’t enjoy a stroll at the end of a day?

Much like every corporate family, we lost several of our top executives just as the holiday season got under way. We wish them luck as they’ve chosen to pursue other opportunities. Now some may say that is fancy talk for axed, canned, fired, or ousted but these leaders deserve much better than such negative words after giving their all. Heck, had we not paid them handsomely and lavished them with benefits and perks we would have been unable to retain them for this long. Who knows what perils we would have faced without their stewardship. Their replacements have been chosen from within the AA family because we feel that no one knows us better than those raised from within. Kind of like inbreeding, if you will, but who better to trust?

As you can see, we’ve come far this year and look forward to another year with everyone in the AA family. Some family members from the Senior Executive branch will be enjoying the holiday at our London “getaway apartment”. Alas, it may be our final Christmas there as some claim it is an unaffordable luxury. We hope, though, that we can convince our creditors that such environs lead to creative solutions that we regularly employ in our day-to-day decisions to maximize success. After all, where would you be without us?

Happy Holidays!

Less for More

2011-12-12T09:07:00.000-08:00

Once again, the USPS (aka the Post Office) is up against the wall in trying to balance costs with revenue. As a result, we can expect longer delivery times and higher postage rates. In other words, less for more. I’ve covered this subject area before in trying to describe the downward spiral created by such rationale, but this specific case has far reaching effects for us all.

Less for more is nothing new. I saw it in the Air Force as Officers’ Clubs increased dues while reducing services. They considered this a way to return to profitability when, in fact, all they did was create additional incentive to seek out other venues for socializing. Many installations now have All Ranks Clubs as a replacement for defunct O CLubs and their brethren, the NCO Club.

The USPS, however, impacts a far greater portion of the population so why is it in such dire straights? First of all, I’d say, it failed to fully appreciate the digital competition created by emails, online bill payment, and the like. Many of us now turn to the computer for solutions that were once provided by the local Post Office. FedEx and UPS have also taken a good bit of the shipping business away by providing what is perceived as better service for an admittedly higher price.

Perhaps I’m too harsh on those charged with running this operation. If so, then the truth is that the whole idea of mail delivery is becoming an anachronism whose day in the sun has come and gone. But many smaller communities still rely on the system due to a lack of options. Satellite internet service is sometimes the only way to get reasonable online speeds and it isn’t cheap. And, of course, one must have a computer to participate.

The other elephant in the room is the self-sustainability mandated by Congress. If we can agree that the USPS provides an essential service, then we must be prepared to offer a subsidy of some sort to ensure its continued vitality. Oh, yeah: we’re not in the spending mood when it comes to our government, are we? So what else can be done?

How about upping the cost of a first class stamp to a dollar? Forget the one and two and three cent increases. And how about ringing up the rate for catalogs and other bulk rate mailings that include credit card offers and the like? God knows most would welcome less of those items in the mailbox. Political pamphlets should be charged the most if for no other reason than they are the most noxious and invasive.

Most would not mind paying more so long as more is received. But paying more for less is a recipe for disaster. The Post Office still plays an important role in today’s society, but should they continue to whittle away at the services they provide it will only accelerate the demise of an institution still valued by a sizable number of folks with little or no choice in the matter. Talk about class warfare...

Rewarding Failure

2011-12-05T09:51:00.000-08:00

This past week my previous long-time employer, American Airlines, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. My decision to retire four months early now seems extremely propitious as I am in receipt of a lump sum representing 100% of what was expected. My colleagues still on the property will not be so fortunate. Time will tell, but it is safe to assume that a good portion will be passed off to the PBGC which will then dilute it further. Pay rates and work rules will also be “adjusted” to the detriment of the employees. I’m not going to take up your time lamenting about the unfairness of it all. Rather, I’m asking that you take a moment with me in an attempt to identify the true miscreants and the punishment for their deeds.

Every business venture has two competing forces: management and labor. Management’s task is to create a business plan that will reward all parties and labor’s role is to implement that plan. Needless to say, management wants to control every last penny of profit while labor seeks to raise the pay and benefits of the workforce. The means to this end, labor-wise, is sometimes through organizing under the banner of a particular labor union. Other businesses find less confrontational ways to handle the dichotomy of expectations. Neither is perfect and either scenario fits into our exploration.

No employee is interested in seeking to derail an employer and have them go out of business. Where is the sense in that? Corporate policies may erode morale to the point where customer satisfaction suffers and impacts the bottom line, but such cases usually result from short-sighted management techniques. So why, then, do businesses fail?

Well, some do because they run out of cash. Both sides suffer when the company dissolves and all are in search of a new position. Others, though, such as AMR (American’s parent) are still in possession of large sums of ready cash. They apparently grow tired of negotiating with seemingly recalcitrant employee groups and paying off loans they’ve received. And they find it easier to take the bankruptcy path that offers much less resistance.

In the courts, contracts can be set aside, pensions reduced or eliminated altogether, and outstanding bills can be renegotiated to the tune of something less than 100 cents on the dollar. Pretty neat, huh? Well, not if you’re a worker bee. But if you’re on the management team, all is well. Your pay and benefits remain largely untouched while you “re-organize” your floundering enterprise.

But who put the business in jeopardy in the first place? If the employees are charged with carrying out a battle plan that fails, does it not fall to the field generals when looking for someone to blame? I’d say so, yet day after day, in filing after filing, executive teams remain whole while shifting draconian measures to the backs of those least responsible for the train leaving the tracks.

Gerard Arpey, American’s CEO until one day before the filing, was heralded as saint-like because he took no severance package as he retired. I guess it’s easier to claim the moral high ground when you take a position with an investment group (headed up by a Continental ex-exec) the following day. And the rest of the nabobs from the Board of Directors on down remain in place despite the fact that they were unable to preserve the viability of what was once the largest airline in the country. Is there any reason to believe that they will suddenly discover the error of their previous ways and succeed where they’ve just failed? I doubt it and so should you.

Does that mean AA is headed for extinction? Not by a long shot. Many companies succeed not because of their leadership, but in spite of it. My only suggestion is that in these cases, the blame should start at the top and trickle down rather than the other way around. Where is the incentive to succeed when failure carries no penalty and, in many cases, its own rewards in future compensation?

It’s safe to say that another bankruptcy will occur in the not-to-distant future. And it’s equally safe to say that those surrendering a larger share will be the ones least responsible for the failure. And that, folks, just ain’t right.

Super-Duped

2011-11-28T07:22:00.000-08:00

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!” W.’s mangling of that sentiment notwithstanding, it serves the rest of us well as we strive to avoid making the same mistakes again and again. And, should we repeat a given mistake, who to blame. Sorry to break it to you, but we’ve been hoodwinked at regular intervals on different fronts for most of our lives. The most recent failure of the “Super-Committee” is but one of many and an excellent starting point, I’d say.

After the House as a whole was unable to find common ground in reducing government spending, they thought it best to form a smaller group of their peers with free rein in an attempt to rein in the cash flowing from Washington into other coffers. And the Super-Committee was thus created. Super powers? Super smart? How about supercilious? Or superficial, perhaps. No, there was nothing super about this assemblage other than the marketing that promoted the possibility of success.

On a wider political note, we’ve come to believe that a two-party democracy is in our best interests and entertaining any third party candidate will only split the vote and allow an otherwise unpalatable candidate to win. The fact is that the Republican and Democratic party’s best interests are served to our detriment. Without the third voice, the issues and resulting debates can be controlled while avoiding real world challenges and outside-the-box solutions. Regardless, the electorate continues to shun that third voice.

Black Friday has come and gone, but not without record breaking attendance and sales. Unfortunately, it also included fist fights, gun shots, and pepper spray used by a shopper on would be opponents (other shoppers) for coveted merchandise. All due to the marketing machine determined to convince the consumer that buying early is the only way to save money and get treasured gifts before they’re gone. Salesmanship 101, in other words. And year after year, more and more folks line up days in advance. As an interesting aside: none of those encamped outside retail outlets in anticipation for Black Friday were threatened with removal by local authorities while other non-violent Occupy venues were being torn down.

Economically, banks continue to sing the song of friendship while keeping an ever-tightening grip on the money they purport to be ready to lend. Banks have never been our friend, you know, but we still seem to gravitate to the bank in our neighborhood in spite of escalating fees and reduced availability of funds. Once again, marketers cajole and coax us into losing our resolve and continuing on the same financial path.

We are creatures of habit to be sure and have proven, time and again, that we can be duped. But is there a time when we finally figure out that everything is built around marketing with a singular goal of serving the best interest of the client, not the consumer. (Yes, you and I are the consumers.) Maybe the current state of our nation may move us toward a third party’s voice in the political debate. Or maybe a resistance to buying the newest and greatest at the earliest possible moment. Or even expecting a bit more quid for the quo in patronizing a specific financial entity. If we continue to fall for the hype of “Super” or “Improved” or “Trust Us” in spite of the almost certain letdown that usually follows, we at least know whom to blame.

Balancing Power

2011-11-21T08:43:00.000-08:00

Picture, if you will, a public gathering place within a city. A park, perhaps, or maybe a square. Within its confines, picture an assemblage of run-of-the-mill citizens who are visibly upset with the situation be it economic, religious, or governmental. The powers-that-be are present, too, in an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating. These powers represent the ruling few. Some are police while others are military. Some work for “legitimate” governments while others enforce the will of dictators. In many cases, things get out of hand and force is used against the demonstrators. Arrests, orders to disperse, and the like are followed by pepper spray, water cannons, rubber bullets, or worse in a ratcheting up of the effort to maintain control.

Cairo? Tripoli? Syria? Maybe Greeks or Italians? What about New York City or Oakland or any number of American cities supposedly besieged by Occupy forces? “Hold on!”, you say. “You can’t compare the U.S. with the rest of the world!” Why not? The shoe appears to fit at least to the point where we can draw parallels.

I’m not here to discuss the pros and cons of populations gathering to protest anything they find onerous. I’m looking at the thin line between order and anarchy and the degree to which those who hold power will go to maintain it. The Occupy folks have been ordered out of parks and other venues in the name of security and public health. Similar tactics have been used in other countries and I can’t help but see these tactics, regardless of location, as nothing more than a rationale to clamp down on a growing voice of disenchantment to preserve the illusion of control.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Greece, and Italy have seen recent changes in the hierarchy of their respective governments. All have come about because of severe unrest within their citizenries. Some were relatively violence free while others saw significant bloodshed. Either way, they all prove one point: an orderly government relies significantly upon the cooperation of those being ruled. After all, the masses represent an overwhelming majority and without their acquiescence, upheaval is unavoidable.

And the ruling few know this, too. That is why their response to any protest that appears to be gaining strength escalates exponentially. A show of force is the only way to defuse a situation that may well lead to changes in the halls of power. Are the powerful few paranoid? Not necessarily, because they fully realize that their hold on power is tenuous at best and requires a degree of public approval.

While our political system seems more organized and orderly than most others, don’t for a minute think that our leaders wouldn’t resort to harsh measures to put down a so-called uprising. Is there a difference between tearing down tents in Tahrir Square in Cairo and in New York City’s Zuccotti Park or San Francisco’s Market Street? Remember Kent State or Chicago’s Democratic National Convention? No, we’re not that much different, folks. Maybe luckier, but not much different.

When the rulers become disconnected from their constituencies, disillusionment follows. In this country, we are seeing a growing chasm between the haves and have-nots and those thought culpable suffer no apparent consequence. The Occupy movement started with a small group of folks interested in bringing Wall Street to account for the sins leading up to 2008. It has grown, though, to include individuals who, for one reason or other, feel abandoned by those chosen to lead and have subsequently lost hope in the American Dream. Without that hope, more and more will find that demonstrating in the street provides an outlet to frustration that might otherwise be vented through more orderly channels in better circumstances. And with that comes sudden, messy changes that may not be in anyone’s best interest.

We are faced with a growing population of frustrated folks who see no use in pursuing a better life through conventional means. And our leaders will resort to ever-increasing means of control in an attempt to convince us that all is well and that “they” can control the situation. Why are the police not tearing down tents pitched outside retail stores in anticipation of Black Friday? Could it be that those campers represent more reasonable positions of economic stimulation? Why should that matter? Aren’t security and public health concerns universal? Does it matter one whit what the purpose of encampment might be?

We’re not in a real good place, my friends. And falsely believing that our leaders have more noble goals than those on foreign soil will not do us much good should things go on unresolved.

Pointless

2011-11-14T07:31:00.001-08:00

A compass without a needle is worthless and recent events lend credence to the suspicion that the moral compass of some is desperately in need of one. From a major college campus to high levels within the Department of Defense, we’ve been let down on several fronts.

We may as well begin with Penn State and its icon, Joe Paterno. There are at least two participants in a criminal act: the victim and the perpetrator. If we’re lucky, a third is present: an eyewitness. Such was the case when Mike McQueary saw an assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, raping a ten year old boy in the locker room showers. After consideration, McQueary consulted with his father and then, later, Paterno.

Joe took some time before passing this information on to his superiors. And there, apparently, any further investigation ceased. While McQueary and those who later possessed the details fulfilled their legal obligation, where in the hell was the moral compass? Where was the instant outrage that would have carried Mike into the showers to come to the young boy’s aid? Perhaps he was so taken aback that he left the showers in a daze. OK, then how about calling 911 and reporting a rape in progress?

Consider Mike’s past and his future aspirations for a moment. He grew up an avid PSU supporter and played for Paterno during his college years. He was a low-level assistant at the time of the assault and no doubt had high hopes of rising within the coaching ranks on campus. It could very well have been his one true dream. But reporting such an incident could very well put that dream at risk. What if the institution (both PSU’s and Paterno’s) turned against him to protect themselves? God knows it would not have been the first time a whistle-blower was turned into grist by the “process”.

Better, perhaps, to pass it up the chain and let the “process” work things out. Safer, to be sure. And that was the course Mr. McQueary chose, much to the detriment of other young boys. I’m at a loss to explain the mental gymnastics required to align such a dereliction with reflections upon the decision that certainly arose in the middle of the night.

Now let’s turn to the DOD’s mortuary where the remains of fallen soldiers were theoretically afforded the utmost of respect in their disposition. It stands to reason that the task was overwhelming and a certain numbness would be required to get through each day. Nevertheless, where was the moral outrage when parts and pieces were regarded as so much flotsam and jetsam? Why was it left to three whistle-blowers to come forward only after the “process” once again chose to protect the institution over the individual?

Both cases involve heinous acts pitting the moral choice of the individual victim against the perceived integrity of an institution. And those closest to the truth chose to pay obeisance to the institution thus protecting their own interests. Comparisons to the Catholic church are numerous and merited.

No one looks to be in a position of being the first to raise an alarm. It’s much easier to wait for someone else to come along and take the brunt of the fallout. But what if there is no one else? Do we drive past the accident victim? Do we call a friend when witnessing an assault rather than the cops? Apparently so, at least in some cases. Media outlets are rife with video of passers-by seemingly unconcerned as others within eye-shot are under extreme physical duress. They, too, have lost their moral compass. Or, at least, the needle that points to the right course of action is clearly missing.

Everyday, we are faced with moral dilemmas where the “right” thing is in direct contradiction to the “wise” thing. Such thinking is rampant in Congress where members are exempt from the laws they pass. Isn’t it time to start thinking about what better serves all of us rather than falling back on personal agendas or institutional allegiance?

I’m sure that the DOD’s mortuary will institute an investigation. So has Penn State. That’s how the “process” works and by the time any substantive changes are made we are on to the next pressing issue. The most ludicrous part of PSU’s intended corrections is to create an Office of Ethics. I can only guess that this entity will try to instill a sense of morality upon a group of supposedly highly educated individuals. What a waste! Morality comes from within and the only person who might cause one to reflect on past practice is the one we see in the mirror.

Full Disclosure

2011-11-07T08:09:00.001-08:00

Last week I celebrated two seemingly opposed events on the same day: winning the lottery and finalizing a divorce. The lottery win was of the airline type where I was able to retire with my retirement benefits intact and the divorce represents that, with the retirement funds safely in my account, all ties with my employer have been severed. So now I am able to come out of the shadows and finally divulge my airline affiliation which, until now, has been described as simply a legacy carrier. And maybe a bit of prognostication, too.

My airline lottery began with Air One, a post-deregulation carrier based in Saint Louis, in the spring of 1983. Eighteen months later the airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In February of ’85 I entered the lottery again as a new-hire with American Airlines. Many told me at the time that I was now home free. Based on my earlier experience (and that of my peers) I was loathe to take anything for granted and was heard to say that I’d let them know in about 27 years.

Well, here I am: a winner. Many of my contemporaries suffered through bankruptcies and mergers where their retirements were either decimated or lost entirely. Did they make a bad decision regarding their choice of employer? Generally not. Many once-solid companies found it impossible to survive in a deregulated airline industry where many newcomers were given a legislative leg-up. PanAm, Braniff, Eastern, and others are gone and most in that lottery lost out as a result. No, give me no credit. Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.

I retired on September 1, but had to wait two months before the appropriate funds were transferred. I chose the option of taking a lump sum payment thus making it possible to cut any and all ties with the airline. Absent an annuity (or pension), should they experience a similar fate as many before them, my financial future is secure.

I do not come here to praise American nor to bury it. Simply put, I can now offer my slant on what its future holds. Over the past several years, some airlines have combined forces (United/Continental and Delta/Northwest) while American chose to refrain from matchmaking. Regardless, we still have “the big three” and each is a member of one of three airline alliances: Star, SkyTeam, and OneWorld.

It is clear to me that American views a rosier future within OneWorld than independently growing by adding aircraft to the fleet and employees to the payroll. Management has come out and said as much when, in describing a new partnership with British Air, they state that the cooperation is “metal neutral”. In other words, AA doesn’t much care upon which airline the passenger books a flight. It seems that they consider the money gained from an American-ticketed passenger on a BA flight as pure profit and this does not bode well for AA employees looking to advance up the seniority list through growth. Likewise, other airlines within an alliance will rely on their partners to provide service to cities they, themselves, don’t serve rather than investing in aircraft and personnel.

I don’t believe that the other two airlines (UAL and Delta) feel much different and see a time in the not-too-distant future where we will have three major airlines called, you guessed it, OneWorld, SkyTeam, and Star. And you, the paying passenger will have little control over which airline you fly when booking an alliance flight. Additionally, within the alliance, member airlines can whipsaw employees against each other in an attempt to further ratchet down compensation and benefits. It will also be harder for a specific airline group to seek redress through the courts because international law will now be involved.

I think one can also expect a move to raise the limit on foreign ownership of US carriers and, eventually, the elimination of the prohibition on cabotage. Cabotage allows a foreign airline to transport US passengers within this country. (Yes, Lufthansa can fly from LAX to JFK to Frankfort, but they can’t drop any LAX passengers off at JFK.) If this final piece falls into place, the United States airline industry will have officially succumbed to the forces of globalization and I don’t think anyone is naive enough to think that, as a result, air travel will enjoy a return to the days of ease and pleasure.

So there you have it: my view of the future of the airline industry. No longer a participant, I remain an interested observer from the nose-bleed seats. I hope I’m wrong and I hope that our elected officials will strive to maintain our air transportation system independent of foreign and corporate influence. But that hope hasn’t borne much fruit in other industries, has it?

Part Time Work...Full Benefits!

2011-11-01T15:56:00.000-07:00

Many are looking for a job that offers benefits. Most part-time positions do not provide any kind of insurance or retirement, though, which may explain why part-time work is about all that’s available. But, like most other rules, there appears to be one exception and it’s a doozy: Congressional representative.

The Republican leadership in the House recently approved the 2012 schedule. It totals 109 days and, should you think I’m playing partisan politics, the Democratic leadership scheduled only 104 in 2008. Now, if this accurately represents the amount of work required of our representatives, why, then, do we provide them with such a high level of pay and benefits?

Oops! We don’t give it to them, do we? No, they give it to themselves. Could this be why the electorate seems so displeased with Washington? A safe bet, to be sure, and that’s why I’m asking you to peruse the following legislative proposition:

The Congressional Reform Act of 2011:

1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.

2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to theSocial Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.

3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.

4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.

5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.

6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.

7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

Some may have seen this proposal as a forwarded email. I did, and I forwarded it to twenty people as requested. Nope, I don’t like forwards much, but this one seemed more than deserving. The problem lies in finding enough votes in Congress to support something that would severely limit the luxuries currently enjoyed.

It turns out that there is a way of bypassing Congress altogether: a Constitutional Convention. Should two-thirds of the state legislatures call for such a Convention, and three-fourths of the states subsequently pass the proposal, it then becomes law. And maybe this would change the way Washington has done business for most of our adult lives.

I’ve never asked my readers to pass my columns along to others, but this idea needs to be circulated to create the impetus needed for it to reach maturity. Feel free to cut it and paste should you wish to keep me out of the conversation. Regardless, I think it is in our own best interests to pass this idea along. So tell a friend (or two).

Q's (No A's)

2011-10-24T10:30:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-17T12:38:00.000-07:00

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

2011-10-10T08:44:00.001-07:00

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

2011-10-10T08:43:00.000-07:00

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?

One and Done

2011-10-03T11:18:00.001-07:00

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.

The Kindness of Cyber-Strangers

2011-09-25T20:34:00.000-07:00

Most of us, especially the more senior, are familiar with the phrase “the kindness of strangers”. Handed down through generations, stories center around a person in need and salvation being delivered from an unknown individual. Tennessee Williams wrote of it and the term can be found in film, music, and television. One could argue that, in this age of tweeting, texting, and other technologies used to connect our society, such kindness from strangers is a thing of the past. And you could count me among those arguing thusly.

Always one to admit a mistake, I’m here to tell a story that reaffirms the aged adage and adds a technological twist. Picture a military man, Ryan, in El Paso. He is single and has a dog named Seymour. Our GI finds himself assigned to another locale for a limited amount of time (TDY’d for those of you familiar with the military). Naturally, Seymour cannot accompany his master and is temporarily assigned to Ryan’s mother for daily care and feeding.

Shortly thereafter, mom faces a significant health issue and Seymour is re-assigned to a family living nearby. The family falls on hard times and relocates to the San Joaquin Valley community of Madera, California. After a period of time, Seymour shows up at the Madera animal shelter. He is dirty and has a rope around his neck, apparently chewed from whatever he was anchored to.

Seymour’s fate in the shelter would be questionable, but his master had implanted a chip that shelter personnel scanned. The chip information leads them back to El Paso and Ryan who has been trying to find his companion since returning from temporary duty. But how to find the funds required to get Seymour back home?

A Madera shelter volunteer, DJ, writes a story for the local paper seeking donations. That story is picked up by a nearby television station who posts their coverage online. Someone, somewhere sees the online video and forwards it to a lady, Kate, in Colorado Springs. Kate’s husband is separating from the Army and they are establishing a German Shepherd rescue for soldiers in need of therapy dogs. Now, Seymour is far from a German Shepherd (more of a scruffy, Benji-type if you will), but his Army affiliation catches Kate’s attention.

Kate’s pretty much geographically undesirable in offering direct assistance, but she posts a request for transport on the Pilots ‘n Paws website (pilotsnpaws.org). This request then goes out to member pilots in the appropriate areas and last Monday morning, as I ate my breakfast, I received the transport request in my email inbox. Such requests are an almost daily occurrence and many are not feasible, but this one was different on several levels.

First of all, I was planning to fly from my home in Calaveras County (California) to Wickenburg, Arizona the following day and a stop in Madera was but a small detour. Secondly, this particular mission was different in that it represented a reunion rather than the more common relocation. An email to Kate and a call to DJ in Madera resulted in a workable plan: I would take Seymour to Wickenburg where he would spend a few days with the Arizona Small Animal Rescue, a group based in Phoenix. Ryan would drive from El Paso to Phoenix on Saturday to pick him up and return to their home in Texas.

Delayed a day for aircraft maintenance, I picked Seymour up Wednesday morning from DJ in Madera and flew him to Arizona. Upon our arrival, we were met by Justin whose wife, Anji, heads up the Phoenix rescue. Ryan drove to Phoenix on Saturday morning, reunited with Seymour, and returned to El Paso. Mission complete!

Without the power of the internet, this story would be nothing more than a nice fairy tale told to tykes while tucking them in for the night. Fortunately, for Seymour and Ryan at least, the kindness of more than one stranger found a uniting force in cyberspace and collectively contributed to his safe return. Four people in three states with no prior introduction were able to collaborate, courtesy of the internet. Without that cyber- connection, the best of intentions would have been rendered moot. (And hats off to Ryan who had the foresight to chip his dog. Yet another technological contribution.) While much time and effort seems wasted while online surfing, Seymour’s adventure and eventual return to his owner serves as a shining example that a stranger’s kindness is not only still possible, but, courtesy of the world wide web, on an even wider scale than ever before.

The Power of No

2011-09-19T08:01:00.000-07:00

In the last several decades, union membership has declined from 20% in 1983 to just under 12%. And, if you take public sector workers out of the mix, the percentage drops to 6.9%. Ronald Reagan gets much of the credit, regarded as a union buster in ordering the air traffic controllers back to work and firing those that refused. In fact, that strike was an illegal action because the controllers were federal workers and, as such, were prohibited from such a job action. Despite my career as a unionized airline pilot, I am forced to agree with Ronnie's decision.

Nevertheless, the unionized work force has become endangered for other, more subtle, events. Foremost is this feeling of rugged individualism that anti-labor forces have promoted. The "I don't need no stinking union" mentality has gone a long way in creating today's dearth of represented worker bees.

Added to this is the preponderance of court ordered cessation of other-wise legal job actions. Without the ability to withhold one's services, a union is nothing more than a paper tiger. Why organize and pay dues only to be neutered by a judge?

I'm happy to report that teachers in Tacoma, Washington voted overwhelmingly to defy a judge's back to work edict on Thursday. Their two day strike apparently had an effect. True to form, management turned to the court in an attempt to sidestep meaningful negotiation and, true to form, the court ordered the teachers back to class.

But wait: the teachers said no. A plain and simple, "No". This kind of peaceful defiance has long been lacking in wars between labor and management. And it is long overdue.

Without similar refusals, the level playing field supposedly created by unionization is nothing but a facade and is tantamount to providing an unloaded gun as a last means of defense.

The labor landscape is littered with employee groups that, in the name of civility and reasonability, have acceded to identical court rulings only to find that fruitful negotiation was but a wisp of smoke on a windy day. With such outcomes does it come to anyone's surprise that organized labor is suffering?

Regular readers also know that I am not necessarily a died-in-the-wool union supporter. Unions rise out of untenable workplaces where fairness and dialogue are nonexistent.

Many companies operate without an organized work force due to an enlightened and engaged management. Management teams of this nature are equally endangered, wouldn't you say?

But given an employee group that is willing to sacrifice much in order to create a better environment for themselves and those that follow, it is incumbent on the courts to allow them to do so. And should the court attempt to restrict that right it is incumbent on the unions to defy.

Creationism

2011-09-12T07:45:00.000-07:00

The country is looking for a creator, you know. No, not The Creator. He’s doing quite well these days. I guess most everyone is praying for a solution to the stagnant economy and bleak unemployment figures. Rather, the creator I speak of is the entity that creates jobs for the masses seeking gainful employment.

It is said by many that government cannot create jobs. Tell that to the myriad of workers receiving a paycheck from various and sundry local, state, and federal coffers. But we’re also possessed with paring down the size of government and, in so doing, only add to the unemployment rolls in a time where we are also trying to pare them down. Confusing, isn’t it?

Government can, however, create an atmosphere more conducive to job openings within the private sector. Lower taxes on business, less red tape and the like, or tax credits for expansion are just a few being bandied about. (Business likes to throw in less oversight, but that’s what created much of the mess the world finds itself in today, so I’d say we may need a pinch more money and personnel on the oversight side of things.)

Unfortunately, we’re witnessing an unparalleled Congressional logjam where any potentially successful program is unpopular because it might reflect favorably on a President the House majority is trying to oust. Without the cooperation of Congress, government has little to offer, job creation wise.

Banks could loan sought-after funding to entrepreneurs, small businesses, and homeowners. But they don’t (or won’t). They claim that credit requirements are tighter than ever, but they’re sitting on historic piles of cash (largely provided by us via TARP) and choose to “loan” their bucks to Uncle Sam for a guaranteed, albeit lower, return on their investment. And guess who pays the return? Yup: you and I.

The corporate world is also awash with large sums to use for investment and expansion. I believe that they’d rather play high stakes poker with the politicos and see how many perks, exemptions, and loopholes their lobbyists can create in the name of promised future growth. And others, still, like to think that their reluctance will be blamed on a Democratic administration that will then be defeated in November 2012. Either way, it doesn’t amount to many jobs, does it?

And there you have it: government can’t do much and the unholy alliance of banks and big business won’t. Each blames the other for being the major impediment to a brighter and bigger tomorrow when, in reality, it is a circle in great need of a knife to cut the continuing cycle of inactivity.

This is where I normally exhort the reader to get involved and change the direction of things, but I’m at a loss in thinking of anything we can presently accomplish. We can send emails to our representatives, but I don’t believe that they’ll change their allegiance to whichever altar they currently worship. And we don’t have the money to take our business elsewhere.

So we hunker down and count our currency, hoping that the great job creator will rise out of the ashes and save our day. I guess that’s why The Creator is finding new customers daily as more and more turn to prayer. Will the tide turn? I think so, eventually. I certainly hope so, anyway. But our society is used to instant gratification and waiting even an extra thirty minutes for a meal is unbearable. Should it come as any great surprise that we’re equally, if not more, impatient when talking about turnarounds that could take several years?

In the meantime, keep an eye on your elected representatives so you know if they chose politics over progress come next November. And be ready to reward businesses that took chances on investment when you once again have a dollar or two extra to spend. Not the best prescription for a happy day, I know, but with a little patience and fortitude we can all live to see the other side of the coin.

The Last Hurrah

2011-09-05T07:34:00.000-07:00

As we move through our chosen livelihoods, most of us form an image of what the final day on the job will be like. Our “last hurrah”, if you will. Some envision accolades and applause while others have less grandiose (and more realistic) expectations. Regardless, that final act takes on a life of its own as the dreamed-of day approaches. And rarely does the reality live up to the fantasy we’ve constructed in our head. So what? No, seriously, so what? Just because the final curtain comes down a bit crooked, does it negate the body of work created over the years? I’d say no and have a personal anecdote for the basis of my argument.

Yes, I’m recently retired. Four months early and I’ll spare you the convoluted rationale behind my early departure. Suffice it to say that a good portion of my retirement money depended upon the performance of the stock market and the August swoon on Wall Street was significant. Luckily, I was afforded a “look-back” of 90 days. And 90 days ago the market was doing pretty good so I took the money and ran.

An airline pilot plans for what is called a “finis-flight”: one last sequence accompanied by a significant other and perhaps a hand-picked First Officer and Flight Attendant crew. A desirable layover is also sought so as to spend it partaking of good food and libation. The icing on the cake includes a water cannon salute provided by the airport Fire Department as the retiring Captain taxies the aircraft between two firetrucks spraying an arch of water. This is generally accomplished after the last landing as the aircraft heads to the gate. Sounds kinda neat, doesn’t it?

I’d be lying if I told you that the scenario I just described did not play over and over in my head as my final flights (to New York’s Kennedy and back to San Francisco the next evening) on August 28th/29th drew closer. I had my F/O (Irene) and several F/A’s that I hold in high regard on the crew list, my wife was ticketed in the cabin, and all was well with the world. My last hurrah was going to be memorable.

Until the “other” Irene raised her ugly countenance. You know...the hurricane? Yup, she was scheduled to arrive in the New York area at just about the same time as I was. Guess who won out on that race? You’re right again: my flight was canceled. My chief pilot offered another flight early the next week, but my wife could not transfer her ticket due to other cancelled passengers filling up any and all available seats. To fly a special trip without her would have been anything but special, so I elected to pass. As a result, my finis-flight was the previous 2 day trip (to Miami and back) and I had little to show for that one save for a look backwards in an attempt to remember as much of it as possible.

Disappointing? Without a doubt. Frustrating? Yes, but, in a twisted sort of way, is there a more fitting end to an airline career in the 21st century than with a cancellation? And, in the great scheme of things, does it really matter? In over 26 years with the airline and almost 20 as a Captain, I did not bend one piece of aluminum nor put any crew member or passenger in harm’s way. That is my body of work and one in which I am most proud.

Athletes do not usually bask in the limelight of a memorable last at-bat or TD catch or buzzer-beating three point basket. Doctors don’t get to save a life on their last day, nor do lawyers win a high-profile case as they walk out the door. Cops don’t catch the crook, either. And many others walk out of buildings with a cardboard box holding the personal remnants of their office or cubicle, victims of bankruptcy and the like. No, many “last hurrahs” contain nothing close to a triumphant cry.

I encourage each and every one of you to allow yourself the fantasy of conjuring up your ideal departure from your life’s work. But don’t be overly surprised when your “Irene” shows up to dash it into the rocks. And don’t be overly disappointed, either. Remember your body of work, built slowly over the years, and never forget the positive impact you had, day in and day out, as you plied your trade and lived your dream. And walk away with your head held high and your eyes on the future. That last strike out or unsuccessful surgery or hung jury or, yes, cancelled flight dims in comparison to the overall effort expended over the years. And, if we’re lucky, the best is yet to come...

Which Way To Turn?

2011-08-29T14:35:00.000-07:00

Irene is a wonderful name,

But damage is her newly found fame.

And now that she’s past

A common question is asked:

With whom do I file my claim?

What a week for those poor souls on the East Coast. Hurricane Irene surely did a number on property and infrastructure alike. And, as I post this, some have are still feeling the effects of her passage. Nevertheless, I’m curious as to how the aftermath will play out.

One would think that, what with the desire for a balanced budget amendment and smaller government, most would roll up their sleeves and get to the business of fixing their own damage as they dip into their own savings to pay for the repairs of things broken and replacement of things lost. After all, they’re independent, strong-willed, God-fearing folks that think Uncle Sam should get the hell out of their affairs.

And, should one think along those lines, one would more than likely be greatly mistaken. No, I’m putting my chips in with those lining up to fill out claim forms provided by FEMA and other publicly funded relief organizations. And anything that the Red Cross (or any other privately funded charity) has to offer, they’ll take that, too. Who could foresee such an event? And who can expect me, an average American citizen with no savings and no insurance, to pick up the tab for a natural disaster?

And there, in a nutshell, you have a perfect example of the dysfunction running through the core of our society and political process. “I don’t wanna cop until I need a cop,” if you will. “And I don’t wanna pay for the cop until I need him.” Of course. No investment into a system that provides the things we will all need at some time or another. No rainy day fund (sorry, Irene), no fall back position, no Plan B.

The romance of an individual against the forces of nature may play well on the silver screen, but flops on Main Street despite the calls for “less spending” and “smaller government”. The theory of such a system flies high, but rolls into a graveyard spiral in the face of a reality that demands expenditure and man-power for the sake of the citizenry.

We are a confused populace, my friends, and we need to figure out just what kind of a world we want to live in: a dog-eat-dog or a one-hand-washes-the-other. Before you decide, though, remember that old country song where no truer words ever were twanged: Sometimes you’re the windshield, sometimes you’re the bug.

Where's Bill?

2011-08-22T06:01:00.001-07:00

No, not Bill Gates or Bill Clinton or anyone else named Bill, for that matter. The “Bills” fall into two categories: legislative and financial.

Obama is preparing a big speech that will address the economic and unemployment dilemmas facing many of us. I can only surmise that his approach will focus on the introduction of legislation (bills) to promote a healthier outlook. His problem lies within those in Congress who abhor the least scintilla of “big government” and will quash such attempts under the guise of “government can’t create jobs”.

While I generally agree that the private sector is more adept at powering the economy, it remains clear that they are reluctant to do so. That leaves only the government to try and incentivize business into hiring and expanding. But the government’s hands have been tied by the austerity measures contained in the debt ceiling agreement. Take your pick: federal, state, or local. Each is affected as the cash flow is stemmed. One look no further than the European Union to get a glimpse of the ramifications of cost-cutting without increased revenue.

So, without legislative bills to spur the economy, we are left with less bills (the good kind) in our pockets and more (the bad kind) in our mailbox, aren’t we? Businesses say they won’t hire because no one is buying and no one is buying because no jobs are available. A chicken and egg problem, to be sure. Of course, we don’t make much of anything anymore, so I’m hard pressed to see where these jobs would be created in the first place.

Either way, we’re stuck with a polarized government and recalcitrant corporate America. Someone recently suggested that the business world has decided to hold America hostage in the hopes of bringing a pro-business administration (Republican) back into the White House. This strikes me as the ultimate in conspiratorial supposition, but there’s not much I’d put past any boardroom today. After all, most companies are sitting on huge amounts of uninvested capital while claiming that uncertainty is to blame for their hesitancy. Funny, but most in the upper echelons of business got there by making bold decisions in uncertain times.

If you’re scanning down this treatise looking for the ray of sunshine, I’m sorry to disappoint. I see us stuck in a squirrel cage that goes round and round, getting nowhere fast no matter how hard we sprint. My only hope is that a new, unknown event will force the powers-that-be to re-think their position and break out of the mental box they’ve built for themselves.

Perhaps such an event lies in the effort behind Americans Elect (Americanselect.org). It’s not a ray of sunshine quite yet, but maybe a thinning of the overcast. This group is attempting to redefine the Presidential election landscape by introducing a viable third candidate into the mix. It’s an on-line process with the goal of including a ticket on the ballot of every state. And the ticket must not contain two names from the same political affiliation.

I’ve long maintained that the two party system has no interest in having a third voice to upset the sweet deal currently enjoyed. This might well be that external event that propels us into a new and productive direction. You need to drop by their website and take a look, though. Waiting for “Bill” to materialize and somehow save us without our involvement is nothing but pie in the sky. And who can afford that kind of dessert these days?

The American Dream with a Twist

2011-08-15T12:44:00.000-07:00

No, I'm not suggesting a new cocktail. Rather, a 21st century slant on a recurring fantasy: hitting the lottery...striking oil. In other words, realizing the American dream. Come on, admit it. You've thought about it just like the rest of us.

As one moves up the economic ladder there is a general interest in sharing the wealth with other, less fortunate souls. Most of us achieve our goals (and the just rewards) through further education, training, and determination. So this interest in sharing comes slowly over time. No one wants to give their hard-earned dollars away, but a portion to worthy causes seems to be a way of paying it forward, if you will, to those that are still striving toward a richer tomorrow.

Few of us are afforded a lifestyle in which money plays no role in our decisions. Why is it, then. that there is such a resistance to restoring tax rates to those earning more than $250,000 a year. It seems that most would be unaffected by this roll-back of tax cuts, but still the hue and cry against such revenue enhancement can be heard from every rung on the ladder. And the cries become louder at the lower reaches instead of the other way around. This makes no sense without the twist that I've referred to in the title.

We've established that most still believe in the American dream and in achieving fortune (and fame, perhaps). The training and striving, though, have been replaced by a more contemporary version where the riches flow immediately from some sort of instant windfall. These dreamers, if you will, have dwelled at the bottom of the money tree and have come to see themselves as quasi-victims of those farther up.

"Some day", they muse, "when my boat comes in, it'll be my turn to stick it to someone else." No sense of obligation to the programs and opportunities that created the environment for financial success. Just a greed-based desire to keep it all. Now, it makes more sense that higher taxes for the "rich" are so opposed when you factor in the ever-present dream of attaining the same level of wealth.

It also paints a sad portrait of the modern American dream. No longer are we willing to recognize that which made us what we are. No longer do we want to re-invest. No, we want to become "the Man" and stick it those that we used to be. While one person refusing to spread the wealth may not pose a problem for our society, a mentality shared by many does.

It means that the "me" generation has finally come home to roost. Society takes a back seat to the individual to the detriment of various publicly and privately funded organizations that seek to create opportunities leading to more dollars in one's pocket. The irony lies in the fact that fewer folks will now be able to realize that dream. True, lottery winners and the like may still be seen on the front page, but, by and large, the American dream slips further away for more deserving souls.

Reinvestment, be it on a personal or community level, is essential in maintaining any real hope of climbing to a higher rung on that money ladder. You may have heard about a tide raising all boats. If so, you know where I'm headed. And if not, you're probably dreaming of how you will spend all of your money. That's sad, but it seems to be the new reality. How else can one explain opposing higher taxes on an income level that few of us will ever attain? Doubly sad is the fact that politicos supporting such tax cuts know full well that those they claim to represent will be harmed the most by such policies.

Advanced Scatology

2011-08-07T21:34:00.001-07:00

Have you ever held a diamond in your hand? If so, you’re familiar with turning it ever-so-slowly to view how the slightest change in angle offers a whole new view of what it has to offer. Each facet is unique and provides its own character to the overall effect of the stone.

OK, let’s take that analogy and alter it just a bit. In mentally reviewing the events of the past several weeks, I find myself holding something else in my hand: horse manure. You know, a meadow muffin. A pasture puck. Or, if you prefer, equine excrement. It, too, has many facets and, to be fully explored, one must turn it slowly in the hand.

Here you’ll find the Washington government facet where the right is witless and the left is gutless. Throw in a president who seeks compromise over any kind of confrontation and we’re reduced to an over-indulgent parent and a spoiled child that threatens tantrums until it gets what it wants.

And here’s the global economy facet. You’ll see how interrelated every country is to every other one and how one’s economic headache is shared by all. Our stock market swoon is partly due to the spasms in Europe. Of course, the debt-limit debacle didn’t help, but you’d have to go back to the Washington government facet to fully appreciate the irony.

The jobs facet is something to behold. The private sector has no need for worker bees and now the public sector has no money for projects, programs, or wages. You needn’t be an economist to see where the unemployment rate is headed.

Look! Here’s the “I’ve got mine” facet and what a sight to behold. Those that have, want to keep it and to hell with those that don’t. Yes, there will always be those that take undue advantage of any program, but the very fabric of our society depends upon the premise that we help those in need. Otherwise, we devolve into a series of tribes scrambling to protect our possessions with nary a thought to the bigger picture.

There is a large facet for which I have no simple name. It is the one that illuminates how folks vote against there own best interests. The Republican party has marketed itself to be the sole source of family values and all that is good and right for America when, in fact, it is more aligned with corporate interests of no regulation and limitless wealth. These goals run opposite to the interests of the typical middle American yet the bulk of Republican voters occupy that economic strata. As a friend of mine says: “You’re not a Republican unless your Gulfstream has winglets.” (A Gulfstream is a high-end corporate jet and one with winglets is a high-end Gulfstream.) Last week’s hogtying of the FAA centered on Republican positions of reducing air service to small communities and making it harder for airline employees to organize. Do they sound like positions to protect the little folks?

And, should you be looking for the vision facet: forget about it. There is, however, a myopic section that has eschewed “long range planning” for quarterly reports and the next election cycle. Yet another disappointing perspective.

By now you’ve realized that your examining a piece of crap and, unlike the diamond, it leaves both a strong scent and brown stain, neither of which are considered highly desirable. But most of the players in today’s economic and political theater have some muck on them. From the Commander-in-Chief down to the lonely voter in the polling booth: we can each claim a role in our current state of affairs.

It’s going to take much more head-work than hand-wringing to extricate ourselves from this funk. Let’s hope that our elected representatives are up to such a task and, if not, it falls to us, the voters, to ensure a better mix of legislators in the future.

Red, White, or Blue?

2011-08-01T07:08:00.000-07:00

As the debt ceiling crisis continues on towards the eleventh hour (and then some), I’m struck by the parallel between members of Congress and our national colors of red, white, and blue. I know, I’m struck alot, it seems, and rarely in normal ways.

Red: Many in Congress are red-faced as they see their colleagues giving away much of the store. “Store” being defined purely upon which side of the aisle one sits. Republicans see giving in way too much on spending cuts while Democrats cannot believe that reducing entitlement programs such as Medicare and Social Security is a possibility while ignoring the need for raising taxes. Both are enraged.

Blue: Others are holding their breath until they turn the aforementioned color unless they get their way. We know them as members of the Tea Party. No new taxes, a balanced budget amendment, and deep cost cutting. That’s it: simple and nonnegotiable. Would Democrats do the same thing when social programs are threatened. I’d say so, but it hasn’t gotten to that point (yet).

White: While Washington dithers about seeking to make political hay over what should be a routine no-brainer, the rest of us are ashen-faced as we see our already shaky economy threatened to further shrivel by the prospect of a national default.

Who would’ve thought that the good old red, white, and blue would come to this. Not one of us lives under a balanced budget if any kind of outstanding balance is carried on any instrument, be it a credit card or mortgage or equity line of credit or other loan of some sort. To expect the country to do so is foolhardy and short-sighted. Unless, of course, you won’t be seeking federal assistance for the next natural disaster that rolls through your neighborhood. Any unforeseen event would lack funding under a balanced budget. You don’t live that way nor do I. Demanding the government to abide under such limitations is naive. Ironically, some of the more inflexible House members have outstanding personal credit balances that would make most of us recoil in terror.

And one more thing: the “American people” did not have a say in who comprises the Congress other than their own district. So, when national polls show that a majority of the “American people” favor a balanced approach to handling our debt (tax increases and lower spending), no House member (that means you, Boehner,) can lay claim to doing what the “American people sent us here to do” by proposing a singular solution of budget cuts.

How about a little less red or blue in the face of our politicos and a little more middle ground? That could well return a bit of color to our cheeks, too. Campaigning is far different (and easier) than governing, to be sure. The time for governance is long past due.

Frivolity

2011-07-25T07:03:00.001-07:00

Frivolous, as defined by Webster, describes a silly or whimsical activity. The term can be applied by others witnessing a behavior or individuals describing the motivations for their specific actions. Today, we talk only of the former, so how can anyone use this word in conjunction with "lawsuit". Suing someone is anything but fun and I find it hard to believe that anyone would frivolously leap into the legal pool. We have been duped, you and I both, and allow me a few minutes of your time to explain.

I have long thought that a big piece of needed reform within our legal system is the seemingly astronomical awards given to foolish people suffering from poor judgment. The lady and the hot McDonalds coffee is the poster child for such reform. Truth be told, this attempt at tort reform can be traced back to corporate board rooms and that, my friends, is generally not in our best interests.

Should you get the chance to view HBO's "Hot Coffee", don't pass it up. This documentary chronicles the slow, yet steady, strategy employed to limit our access to courtrooms or justified damage awards. Some states have imposed penalty caps on awards while corporations prefer arbitration clauses in contracts with their customers, all in the name of tort reform. The former makes legal action financially unfeasible while the latter bars us from the courtroom altogether.

OK, it should come as no surprise to learn of corporate America's desire to keep you and me from seeking redress for their shenanigans, but why is the campaign so successful? I'd say good marketing aimed at fair-minded folks. And aren't we all fair- minded? Well, I'm fair-minded, anyway, but I'm not so sure about you.

And just like that, we've all been hornswoggled into this high pitched, hot tempered, tort reform fever as we fall prey to the misconception that frivolous lawsuits will be our undoing. Get rid of them, we're told, and all costs go down: medical, insurance, merchandise, and the like. After all, the prices are high to cover the costs of such frivolity. (In states that have instituted reform by limiting awards, no evidence of lower premiums, etc. has been found.)

In so doing, though, we bypass an integral part of our judicial system: the jury. Left to their deliberation, they are in the best position to separate the frivolous from the serious and render appropriate verdicts. Otherwise, we've allowed politicians and CEO's to define the term and one needs little time to decide who's best interests would be served. (Hint: it's not us!)

It's not my place to rule on the merits of your complaint unless, of course, I'm a member of the jury hearing your case. Nor is it your place to rule on mine. I think we can also agree that any foray into the legal arena is something far from frivolous. That being said, let's temper our rush to tort reform by remembering the two important letters in frivolous: u and i.

Hope vs Pessimism

2011-07-18T06:14:00.000-07:00

I recently promised to delve into the seeming dichotomy of hopeful pessimism and there’s no better time, I’d say, what with events swirling about at a hectic pace and threatening to overtake us. I wish I could say that this idea sprung from my own musings, but the credit goes to Dr. Cornel West. Dr. West is a regular guest on HBO’s "Real Time with Bill Maher" and, on a recent show, he described himself as a pessimist with hope. This stuck with me because the two, while rarely sharing the same sentence, are far from mutually exclusive.

It is difficult indeed to feel optimistic when looking at current events. Political, corporate, financial, environmental, you-name-it: the obstacles are overwhelming in trying to get our arms, let alone heads, around issues that collide and confuse. No, optimism isn’t number 1 on today’s hit parade and for good reason. But our absence of rose-colored glasses does not necessarily mean we’re ready to throw in the towel. That's where hope comes into play and I’d venture to say that it coexists in each of us regardless of whether we’re optimists, pessimists, or pragmatists. How can that be?

Could it be that they occupy different venues within our psyche? Pessimism, et al, represents a state of mind that shapes our view of the world and short term outlooks. And we can be all at the same time as we contemplate the different challenges and potential solutions. Hope, on the other hand, can be found only in our heart. It is more of an emotion than mental process and, as such, ignores facts and the reality of our daily life. As such, it allows us to look past the warts and envision a world of possibilities.

There are hopeless creatures out there, to be sure, and you can bet they’re pessimists of the first order. No surprise, though, because without hope there can be nothing to temper the doom and gloom in our thoughts. Hope, however, can thrive in spite of the mind’s eye and finds cohabitation with pessimism more than doable.

I can’t say for certain that one can train the heart to be hopeful. I do know that, in spite of my daily dose of wonder at the dismal state of the human condition, I remain hopeful that mankind can somehow wiggle its way out of the various messes it currently finds itself enmeshed. We’ve always seemed to do it before and, while the pessimist in me thinks we may be coming to the end of our streak, my hope keeps me searching for that elusive rainbow. I also accept the fact that having hope is harder work than adhering to a pessimistic viewpoint.

Feel free to bemoan the state of affairs, but leave room at the end of your diatribe for a small serving of hope. After all, without it we’re not left with much, are we? And thank you, Dr. West, for drawing the important distinction between the two.

Recovery or Reinvention?

2011-07-11T08:23:00.000-07:00

It's hard to watch or read any news report without some mention of the ongoing economic "recovery". Jobs, housing, production, productivity, and similar statistics inundate us in trying to explain the continued malaise while searching for some sign of improvement. Nothing surprising there, I'd say, but I can't help wondering whether the term "recovery" is appropriate. I won't waste your time (nor mine) re-plowing the ground in describing how we got to where we are. We all know that song, so let's spend a few minutes looking at how this extrication differs.

In past recessions, workers were laid off as production was reduced. Then, as the economy rebounded, workers were recalled and production returned to previous levels. In other words, the economy recovered. This time is different for a myriad of connected reasons. I'm not an economist so many of the subtleties escape me, but bear with me as we take a look at some of the major pieces of our dilemma.

Housing: It all started with offering unqualified buyers the opportunity of owning their own home. "Don't worry. The value goes up so fast that you can sell when your payment becomes too high and still walk away with money in your pocket." As the economy slowed, buyers became scarcer, adjustable mortgage payments went up, and the foreclosures began. It didn't stop there, though, because construction fueled much of the economy so, as it slowed, other jobs were eliminated. Today, more stable, qualified, buyers are slipping into the world of foreclosure, short-sale, or bankruptcy.

Many distressed properties are yet to be placed on the market by the banks to prevent even deeper cuts in selling prices so we can expect this glut of under-valued homes to continue for a good time. Many caught up in this whirlwind may never buy a home again. Some won't be able to even consider it for years until their credit reports improve, but that may still not be long enough for the demand to outpace supply.

Banks: Banks are not in business to loan us money. They're in business to make money. Presumably, the TARP funds were meant to be used as a primer for our economic engine. That wasn't part of the contract, though, and the banks hoarded their funds to cover future losses connected with the toxic assets incurred during the mortgage binge. In the meantime, they could be used to inflate the bottom line and provide even larger bonuses to the executives.

No, banks are not our friend, nor will they ever be. Do not expect the loan requirements to suddenly vanish. Money will continue to be loaned under highly restrictive terms resulting in a prolonged period of stagnation.

Jobs: While many of us are still working, wages have stagnated. Discretionary cash is scarcer and most are now limiting purchases, big and small. The ability to draw from a home equity line of credit is all but gone as home values have lowered and the equity terms have been altered commensurately. As we reined in our spending, the economy shrank further, resulting in more job losses. And, as more lost their job, foreclosures and their related vehicles soared. Unemployed and underwater: a lethal combination, financially speaking. In looking for new work, many considered relocation, but how does one relocate when one cannot sell their home? And, should they be able to sell, it will fetch a price so low that no gain can be realized to finance the relocation.

And, when better times arrive, many of those lost jobs will not return. Some were replaced by technology...others by the increased productivity of co-workers afraid of finding themselves on the street, too.

Uncle Sam: Historically, government stepped in and provided jobs and benefits to those caught up in the clutches of a recession or, worse yet, a depression. But our generous Uncle has no money, either, and seems unwilling to “borrow” from a future where better days lie. So no short-term assistance, no long-term investment seeking the next best thing since sliced bread. Just a promise of better days to come.

The economy that we all grew up within was based on consumerism. I'm not so sure that the immediate future will include masses of folks scrambling to buy the latest and greatest doodad. We’re in for a major realignment of our economic model as folks consume less regardless of their personal bank balance. I'd say that we're entering a period of reflection, reorganization, and reinvestment in our own quality of life. Smaller homes, greater savings, new careers. In other words, a reinventing of how we define ourselves, our economy, and what is important to each.

Such a transformation takes time under the best of circumstances, but the continued mantra of "economic recovery" seeks only to delay any real progress as it attempts to reassure us that things will soon return to normal. Only when we accept the fact that established definitions of jobs and housing and standards of living are passé will we begin the process of economic reinvention. And the sooner we get started, the better.

Commitment

2011-07-04T09:14:00.000-07:00

It has been said that marriage and insanity have at least one thing in common: commitment. So why not spend a few minutes in exploring both phenomena. Marriage entails many more relationships than between two individuals. Employees are married to their employers, for instance, in that both need the other to exist and thrive. Similarly, our government needs constituents to function. So why is so much time spent to alienate the very folks needed the most?

Let’s start with the latest example of corporate dysfunction: the NBA. So far as we can tell, the owners are bad businesspeople and can’t make a profit. And the players, thought to be overpaid and molly-coddled, want more, too. So the lockout threatens the financial futures of all involved. The NFL is similarly embroiled in a contractual dispute. While professional athletes contribute mightily to the astronomical cash flows that their teams enjoy, their skill set is limited. As such, they’re in a tough spot seeking ever higher salaries for a job that is viewed as non-essential to our everyday life. And the owners, while perhaps enjoying other revenue streams, stand to lose, too.

The political polarization we see at just about every level of government also serves no productive purpose. Much like fiddling while Rome burns, both sides of the Congressional aisle flirt with disaster in delaying a solution to the raising of the national debt limit. Should the worst-case scenario come to pass, most, if not all, citizens will be affected. And they will take their wrath out on their elected representatives. Once again, everybody loses.

Negotiating has taken on a new cachet where no-blink, high stakes poker has replaced meaningful dialogue with a pragmatic realization that each side has much to lose. Historically, in such scenarios, a compromise where neither side is overjoyed yet finds some sunshine amid the clouds was to be expected. Today, though, we’re all in vehicles playing chicken with oncoming traffic. And that, I’d say, is insane.

Most of us know that such obstinacy in a domestic setting leads to certain disaster. Why then, do we refuse to acknowledge the same danger in the corporate or political arena? I’d suggest it’s due to the lack of commitment when it comes to matters outside the home. We hear “take this job and shove it”, but have you ever heard the same philosophy in personal relationships? True, at the end of a hopeless coupling words to that effect are said with great feeling, but no one says it earlier except in an attempt to speed up the arrival of that ill-fated day. But we hear it regularly elsewhere.

Perhaps if we added a pinch of commitment to our commercial and legislative dealings things would progress more smoothly. Perhaps, if we saw the bigger picture, including those dependent upon our best effort, would we move from the far corner to a point closer to the center of the room. Perhaps, if we got over ourselves, the glimmer of hope might grow into a flame. There are times when compromise is fruitless and discretion is no longer the better part of valor. But these times come upon reaching the end game. What we see now is an opening position of intransigence and no one is served by that behavior.

One need look no further than those that signed the Declaration of Independence: five were captured by the British and tortured before they died. Twelve lost their homes to looting and arson. Two lost sons in the Revolutionary army and two more had their sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War. These were men who saw the greater picture. They committed themselves to an ideal and suffered great personal loss as a result. Was their effort in vain?

Isn’t it time to refocus on a more distant point and find ways to recapture the spirit that brought us so far and so well? Shouldn’t CEO’s look beyond quarterly results? Shouldn’t politicians disregard lobbyists? How about recommitting to the relationship held between bosses and worker bees, representatives and constituents. And what better time than the 4th of July?

Watching the Pot

2011-06-27T07:53:00.000-07:00

President Obama’s announcement this week of a “draw-down” in Afghanistan forces has resulted in a vigorous debate. Too few? Too many? Too soon? Too late? Take your pick...there’s always room for one more.

To call this conflict a war is appropriate, but it is a reflection of what a 21st century war is and is not. This war is not a disagreement with a country and its population. It is a battle with those that owe no allegiance to any particular sovereign state. The enemy wears no uniform and can be found moving about within a given country as well as across neighboring borders or beyond. Unlike most of its predecessors, this war is without boundaries or easily identifiable foes. As such, I do not think it is a war that can be “won”.

Those that we are fighting in Afghanistan, be they Taliban or al Qaida or some other hostile group, are adept at running away so they can live to fight another day. After all, their battle has stretched over eons and a mere ten years for us is but a blip on their timeline. They will shoot and run or perhaps even suspend their fight until the force du jour decides to “draw-down”. Then, when the coast is decidedly clearer, they will re-emerge to continue their quest for dominion.

So how does one “win” such a war? They don’t. The Russians found that out as we are today and precious lives are being risked and lost while we search for a “winning” strategy. Marketing, in other words. Is it so important that the US can declare victory while extricating itself from a hapless situation? Apparently so, at least to those that lead.

We’ve all learned that a watched pot never boils. Drawing a rough parallel, I have no doubt that violence will return to the streets of every Afghan community once US forces vacate them. Are the Afghanis lawless and inherently violent? Probably not, but they are a collection of sects and tribes that do not recognize a central government. Left to their own, historic devices who can be surprised that they will return to what they know? And we simply cannot afford the dollars and personnel to keep a close watch on them.

So let’s agree that, regardless of specific numbers and dates, the sooner is, by far, the better. Chaos will once again reign with only a question of when yet to be decided. And while we draw-down our forces in Afghanistan, how about taking a look at our commitments in other, less volatile countries. Germany, for instance, or Japan or Korea. These are pots that have long since cooled and pose little or threat of boiling over. And modern warfare strategies make the past practice of standing guard on a given line obsolete. It seems to me that our presence provides more economic support than strategic and, if so, let’s bring some more troops back home from less hostile climes.

Einstein opined that insanity is no more than doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Our current involvement in a country that has endured centuries of invasion and conflict is a perfect example. Right or wrong, we ain’t gonna win this thing no matter how distorted the definition. There are those that will speak of strategic advantage or long term stability in support of maintaining a presence. Mere code words, I’d say, for staying a course littered with hidden agendas and lost lives.

Wave Action

2011-06-19T20:48:00.000-07:00

Over the years, some have called me a wave maker. Others have labeled me a trouble maker. And others, still, prefer the term “shit disturber”. Take your pick: they all apply depending on one’s point of view and the specific circumstance surrounding my participation. Let’s be clear, though: I do not go out of my way to find trouble or to make trouble for its own sake. What I do, though, is raise the BS flag when I am in a situation that attempts to exploit unreasonable amounts of patience or understanding on my part.

I’m fully prepared for undesirable monikers from those that would rather I stand quietly and wait my turn at the whipping post and such a threat does not deter me from attempting to right a negative experience. Hence my question. “What’s wrong with making waves?”

Have you ever visited a pond in mid-summer? The water is a virtual mirror as the surroundings are perfectly reflected in its stillness. A thin sheen (usually green) lies over the entire expanse as various midges and such fly lazily above. The odds of finding a fish or any other viable creature under the surface are small because the water is more or less stagnant. And a sip? Are you kidding me?

Now, compare our pond with the ocean. Churning, foaming, vibrant. Abundant life and, yes, the potential for danger. We can back off a bit, though, to a stream fed lake, for instance. The presence of a current makes for less stagnation and more vitality. And we can confirm the current’s existence by noticing the waves upon the surface.

Just as waves upon the water lead to a greater degree of vibrance, the waves we make as we venture into the daily stream of events contribute to a better environment for everyone. With few exceptions, every opinion expressed in this weekly offering or the chapters in my book urge the reader to become more active in the outcome of various and sundry events. This activity is simply the making of a wave. And, once again, what’s wrong with that?

Well, the keepers of the status quo find something wrong with that because waves create a degree of turbulence and they would just as soon keep everything humming along with nary a ripple. The absence of waves ensures continued job security and the cash flow it provides. Once we start questioning the why’s and how’s no one can predict what fallout may occur. Not coincidentally, these believers of the status quo are generally a good bit farther up the food chain than most worker bees. “Oh, well,” they sigh. “That’s the way it goes, I guess.”

The problem lies in the fact that the worker bees start sighing the same lament and that’s when any hope for progress is extinguished. No questions...no comments...no waves. Not even a ripple. Life goes on, uninterrupted and unimproved.

This leads me to one last question for the week. When’s the last time you made a wave? Any kind will do: a comment or complaint to a manager, a question over a policy that makes no sense, a letter to an elected representative. Pick any day in the last week and try to find one that did not offer at least one opportunity to say something that you felt needed saying. I’d bet that you can’t and good for you if you spoke up. But many do not. I can offer no sensible explanation, but can’t help but think that they prefer the stillness of our stagnant pond than the rougher waters of the lake or ocean. Lazy? I don’t think so. Maybe indifferent or seeing no benefit in speaking up. It doesn’t matter, though, because the silence has nothing but negative implication where the roar represents the possibility of improvement.

Sometimes I wonder why I continue to send my musings into cyberspace for your review. Nothing seems to be changing so why spin my wheels? Some call me a pessimist and I would be hard pressed to argue, but I do remain hopeful. A hopeful pessimist? Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two and I fully intend to discuss the dichotomy in an upcoming piece.

In the meantime, throw a stick out into the middle of that stagnant pond and watch the ripples as they spread and sometimes reach places far from the point of impact. The ripples you make in your daily life can be equally far-reaching. It’s entirely up to you, though, as to whether you toss that stick or let everything lie still and undisturbed. (Go on...throw the stick!)

The Perils of Power

2011-06-12T21:32:00.000-07:00

The recent exploits of Anthony Weiner are only the latest in a string of seemingly irrational acts committed by folks seen as powerful in their respective arena. John Edwards and his love child, Arnold Schwarzenegger and his, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the chambermaid, Chris Lee and his shirtless pose for Craigslist: just some of the more recent. One could say that such behavior dates back at least to Richard Nixon and his Watergate albatross, but all have one thing in common: powerful people doing stupid things.

The first phase of this stupidity path is audacity. Many, if not most of us have fantasized about committing some sort of illegal or immoral act. The little voice that keeps us from acting on that impulse is our conscience telling us that we’re screwed when (not if) we get caught. The powerful, though, have come to ignore that voice as they are led further and further into the land of make-believe where anything they do can be made to disappear.

The audacity leads one to act on impulse and, when caught, to the lying that inevitably follows. (Chris Lee the notable exception since he resigned from Congress immediately upon being discovered.) Once again, audacity reigns supreme in creating the belief that the bad news will simply go away simply because of the individual involved.

Sooner or later, the truth comes out in one way or another. The facts pile up as water behind a levee and cracks are soon exposed which allow even more details to come rushing onto the public scene. The powerful have learned that the rest of us demand they take responsibility for their actions. As such, many now claim that they take full responsibility for their actions. Only after their lies have failed, of course, and they seem to believe the claim alone will bring the unpleasantry to an end.

Responsibility is hollow absent consequence, though, and this is where power starts to trip upon itself. You see, the powerful see consequence as having no place at the head of their table and refuse to entertain its certainty. Nixon’s resignation, Clinton’s impeachment, Arnold’s divorce and DSK’s incarceration are all fine examples of the consequences stemming from the doing and the lying.

Anthony Weiner now refuses to resign from Congress. The point seems moot to me since he will be shunned within those halls and subsequently spurned by the voters. While his acts may not be illegal and many may deem them something short of immoral, his lying as an attempt to avoid responsibility and consequence should be unpardonable. I would hope that honesty and integrity be sacrosanct for any member of Congress.

So long as there are pedestrians within the halls of power, be they political or corporate or social, the perils of audacity, avoidance, responsibility, and consequence will exist. True, over time we become disillusioned with those considered role models and subsequently cynical of those that follow. Perhaps, if we all accept the fact that power doesn’t dispel human failings, we can better accept the bad side when it appears.

As for Weiner? Well, should he decide to resign, I’ve an idea for his future enterprise: the marketplace is apparently in need of professionally photographed poses of penises. Who wouldn’t want their manhood to be depicted in its best light before sharing it with the cyber-world? He’s got the name and the experience. He could call it DixPix!

Help Wanted...Please!

2011-06-05T20:38:00.000-07:00

Immediate Opening:
Presidential Candidate
No Experience Necessary
Must be willing to debate smart black man
Belief in God and Guns a plus
Contact Republican National Committee

It's hard to believe that, with an unemployment rate of 9%, the Republican Party is struggling to find a viable candidate that might challenge Obama next year. On the other hand, when one considers what a candidate is expected to provide, maybe not.

The Tea Party has thrown the party ass over tea kettle (pun intended) as they pull any hopeful to the right. While this may serve them well during the primaries, national elections generally attract more moderate voters who will cross party lines to avoid strident views. This means that the candidates must be near-schizophrenic as they energize "the base" to get the nomination and then the nation by espousing differing views.

California's race for Barbara Boxer's senate seat last year is a case in point: while all polls showed Tom Campbell the only primary candidate able to defeat Boxer, the primary voters looked upon him as too moderate. They chose Carly Fiorina to challenge Boxer and she lost because the overall pool of voters more than likely looked upon her as too far to the right.

And, despite what they purport, the Republican field views Obama as a formidable opponent and anyone with aspirations of a political future is loathe to run and lose for fear of an enduring scar in 2016. Candidates such as Gingrich or Giuliani have little to lose. Pawlenty is so new on the national scene that he, too, could well survive a defeat and live to run another day. Likewise, Sarah Palin could well run as the anti-establishment candidate without harming her brand name.

Regardless, the schism within the party has created the need for one person that can satisfy the expectations of two very different constituencies. So maybe, after all, we should not be surprised that many on the right have decided to sit out the 2012 dance.

In the meantime, the political right remains frustrated as they look for that perfect candidate. It is very possible that, in realizing there is no such animal in this cycle, the Tea Party will promote their own candidate. While this may be philosophically satisfying, the result will be a revisit to 1992 when Ross Perot's name on the ballot split the Republican vote and Clinton won the White House.

Whomever the eventual nominee is, the mantra will remain the same: low taxes, small government, family values. In other words, pay little, expect nothing, and keep your private life private. All three run counter to human nature and examples abound to prove their impotence. Nevertheless, expect a debate over polarizing philosophies rather than real-world ideas and proposed solutions. So maybe the particular candidate's name is secondary and really has no bearing on what happens next.

A true conundrum, to be sure, and only time will tell if a serious contender throws a hat into the ring. Should Obama contribute to some national failure or scandal, the doors open wide for challengers as soon as he is seen as vulnerable. Otherwise, don't expect much from right field. It's not about our nation's future and continued vitality, you know. It's about the future and vitality of one's public service "career".

Never Forget

2011-05-29T07:40:00.001-07:00

The traditional Memorial Day is reserved for a period of reflection and remembrance in honor of those that died while serving in the Armed Forces. It was created after the Civil War as a vehicle to heal the scars of that conflict and the deep divisions that remained.

Today’s Memorial Day is a weekend affair. While it may still include a moment of silence for those that gave their lives, it seems to be more of a salute to the beginning of summer and the recreational offerings provided. Without a doubt, times change and I’d be the last person to ask you to refrain from frivolity in the name of drawn out dwelling on more maudlin subjects.

What I do ask, however, is to consider broadening our scope. Those that gave their lives for this country fully deserve their own day, but I can’t help but wonder about other heroes in our lives that well deserve a moment, too. Some of these folks have passed on and we can only give them a private thought of thanks. But others are still living and I can think of no reason for not including them in our Memorial Day consideration. After all, why must we wait until someone dies before acknowledging their role in our lives?

We’ve all got someone in our past that enjoys a higher echelon of respect and admiration. They may be relatives or friends or bosses or colleagues. Regardless, they all share the fact that they have contributed greatly in our success. So why not remember them along with our military heroes?

The beauty of this proposal lies in the opportunity to reach out and thank someone who richly warrants the praise. Sadly, such conversations are often put off until a eulogy is delivered. Why wait? Recognize that today is fleeting and tomorrow is never guaranteed. Make the call, knock on the door, send that email or text (although I’d say that some sort of oral conversation would be best). What better way to acknowledge all the people, strangers and acquaintances alike, that deserve our thanks? And, what with a three day weekend, there’s plenty of time to add some folks to your list, isn’t there?

Some of us will be drawn to cemeteries to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by those dear to our hearts. Others will attend ceremonies to honor our fallen soldiers. These occasions are important and serve to remind us that our freedoms do not come without a cost. There's still ample time left, however, to reach out to the other heroes in our life.

That's it: short and sweet. After all, it’s Memorial Day and I’ve got a few calls to make. How ‘bout you?

Engineered Society (with a side of rapture)

2011-05-22T17:01:00.001-07:00

Before diving in to this week’s topic, a quick salute is in order to Harold Camping and his spot-on prediction of the rapture (yesterday at 6:00 pm). True, I’ve not lost one single potential reader, but that only means no one was “selected” to rise above the rest. So much for holier-than-thou attitudes, huh? Ironically, every religion quotes from its personal scripture of superiority to the detriment of others not so like-minded. Yup, Harold, your prediction was flawless. It just turned out that you and other rapture hopefuls were simply not worthy. ‘Nuff said...

Boy! What a week for Newt Gingrich. Much ink and audio tape has been used to discuss his past (infidelities), present (engaging mouth before mind), and future (poster boy for the "What I Meant To Say Association") so re-plowing that ground is a waste of my time and yours. One would think, though, that a career politician would consider avoiding these common mistakes as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately, in this age of microscopic vivisection of every word, the above "fish/barrel" analogy would provide simultaneous endorsement from the NRA and condemnation from PETA. But I digress. Within his discussion of Paul Ryan's budget proposal, Newt had an interesting thought. To paraphrase: he considered social engineering from the right no more desirable than social engineering from the left.

The firestorm of controversy was immediate. So much so, in fact, that the meat of his opinion was ignored as pundits and politicos zeroed in on right vs left. The meat? Social engineering. I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard that term before, but it seems to imply a methodical attempt to shape a society in a given way according to a given set of principles.

"Perish the thought", you cry. Hold on a minute. Our society is comprised of a Constitution and a boat load of laws all aimed at creating some semblance of order out of chaos. These documents were written in an attempt to shape our society in a given way according to a given set of principles. Engineered, if you will, by many legislators over the past two centuries with differing opinions, but one over-riding tenet: the continued success of this country.

Maybe Newt was onto something. Or maybe not. It seems that he is opposed to any engineering from anyone regardless of which side of the political highway it originates. Doesn't that take us back to the chaos that gave rise to the previously mentioned documents? I'd say so.

In light of the current political atmosphere where one side (the right) is threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way, Newt's stance is intriguing. On some level, he knows that Ryan's proposal has no chance of passage so apparently he'd rather have nothing instead of anything that might come from somewhere left of center. That sound you hear is generations of forefathers spinning in their graves.

Perhaps this is a logical evolution of the "me" generation. The squabbling and separatism have reached all-time highs while those of us in the trenches suffer as much from inaction as unintended consequences. Isn't it time for us all to get along? OK, how about at least meeting somewhere closer to the middle? And by "middle" I don't mean right of center as the left moves ever closer to the right in the hopes of appearing reasonable.

Our society is nothing but a group of folks adhering to common principles established through laws, ordinances, and other constructs that dictate a general expectation of behavior. Yes, you can call it social engineering and no, it is not perfect. But it's all we have and failing to recognize that and refusing to entertain compromise will surely lead to the chaotic scenario no one wants to envision.

Scrapping established social systems like Medicare and Social Security simply because they are unsustainable in their present form is childish and lacks any kind of rational thought for the well being of you or me or those around us. The next time you wake up in the middle of the night, far removed from emotional response and more willing to entertain reason, try to admit that you, too, realize that universal health care is right and proper. And face the hard fact that a decreasing number of worker bees cannot continue to fund an increasing number of retirees without tweaking the associated programs.

It doesn't start with Washington, you know. It starts with us and whom we choose to represent our interests. Not our individual interests, but rather our common ones. We can continue to elect firebrands while complaining about legislative gridlock or look to a new group comprised of a more moderate mentality that might be able to slowly steer our ship of state onto a more appropriate course.

Not So Bad?

2011-05-16T10:21:00.000-07:00

There's not one of us that did not experience a childhood trauma with an observer telling us that it wasn't all that bad. My goblins were hypodermic needles and dentists. And, as I squirmed and howled, my mother would admonish me with, "Oh, come on, it doesn't hurt that much." Excuse me? I'm the one with a needle in my ass or a drill in my mouth so don't try to tell me what it feels like!

But now we're all grown up and beyond such input, aren't we? If only that were true. Today we hear statistics that tell us things cost about as much as they used to and we're in pretty good shape. According to the statisticians, perhaps, but how do you feel about it?

We've got numbers galore extolling low inflation and a reasonably flat consumer price index (CPI). The problem is that you and I both know that our dollars simply are not going as far today. The current behemoth is the price of gasoline. That should come as no surprise since we are a mobile society. As fuel costs go up, our direct financial loss is readily apparent, but other costs go up accordingly because most anything we buy depends upon some sort of transportation. Food prices go up, too, along with just about everything else. Does it matter what the experts are telling us when we're looking for ways to conserve our cash between pay days? Some would call this the higher cost of living which is much harder to quantify than CPI's or inflation rates.

No, the cost of living depends, first of all, on how one defines living. Does it include cigarettes? Or liquor? Or Starbucks? We each have our list of things that we consider essential in our daily lives and the list gets longer as our cash flow increases. That cash flow, though, has stemmed a bit, so the list is getting shorter, but each list is different.

How about a new number that better reflects the daily challenge in making ends meet? Let's call it the "Cost of Essential Service". You're right in seeing that "essential" is a relative term, but I'd bet there are a few things that appear on everyone's personal list. Food, for example. Or housing. And, of course, fuel. These three areas strike me as universal despite the particular menu or address or vehicle.

Each part of the country has its own costs of essential service and these differences need to be factored into the final number. Median home prices and rental rates along with other averaging would create a fairer representation of these costs. Now we have a number that we can use to compare our current location with others. And now we have an answer for those that tell us it's not that bad.

While someone is working on this new number, can someone else tell me what's so shocking about oil executives pleading poverty to Congress? Who wants to pay more tax? And, since employment is such a hot topic these days, what better argument than loss of tax breaks will result in loss of jobs? Remember when restaurant and bar owners warned of impending doom if non-smoking legislation were to pass? No, I'd say oil companies ponying up a bit more to Uncle Sam won't cost anyone a job, but it's a scary thought and that's why they're planting it in our minds.

Meanwhile, Obama is re-thinking drilling opportunities in Alaska and "incentives" to oil companies so they might actually drill on lands where they already possess leases. The proceeds from new drilling won't show up at our gas pumps for decades and "incentives" should eerily similar to tax breaks. Oh, what a politician won't do for better poll numbers.

Enough of financial wonks and the like tut-tutting us about how good we really have it. You know and I know that times are tougher and our dollars don't go nearly as far. Perhaps this essential living index might better illustrate the true state of our financial well-being. It surely couldn't hurt and who'd notice yet another number in the sea of statistics?

Tell Me Why...

2011-05-08T21:22:00.000-07:00

At the risk of sounding too much like Andy Rooney (not that such a comparison would be entirely bad), I’ve got a few nagging questions this week. I don’t know about you, but I know I’ll feel better getting them off my chest. Sometimes we have to deal with the fly poop in the pepper before getting back to more serious musings, you know.

First off, why the brouhaha over the non-release of a dead bin Laden photo? Either you believe he’s dead or you don’t. Look at the Birthers and their continuing doubts in spite of continued statements and evidence to the contrary. Can there be any doubt that similar outcries would follow the release of a picture portraying a bullet-riddled ObL? “Fake! Fraud! Photoshop!” Even al Qaida has acknowledged the passing of their leader, so what would the release of a photo accomplish? (As an aside, it seems as though al Qaida members are more willing to accept reality than the Birthers. Kinda sad, isn’t it?)

And why would we admit that a “treasure trove” of information was confiscated at bin Laden’s home? Why wouldn’t we want to let the bad guys think they’re still cloaked in the security of secrecy while we ferret each and every one of them out of their lairs? Now they’re running for cover in new places and changing their names and appearance and such. Seems like a step backwards to me. Unless, of course, we found nothing and now are creating the impression of being smarter than we really are.

Moving on, most of us have caller ID on our phones so we know who’s calling before we answer. Why then do many folks answer with “Hello?” instead of “Hi, mom” or dad or whomever? It’s dumb and we’re smarter than that, aren’t we? True, some numbers or names don’t ring a bell, but generally we know who is on the other end of the call and should greet them personally when answering.

And why is so much time spent texting when a conversation takes less time and is more personal. Yes, there are venues where a call would be rude to those in our proximity, but I’d say most choose to text simply to avoid conversation of any kind. And texting at a dinner table in the company of friends is no less rude than talking. Either turn the phone off or move off to a deserted area to conduct your oh-so-important business.

Why do more and more people include the word “actually” into a conversation where it has no meaning? The word infers that we’ve been lied to and an admission is in order or that a misstatement is in need of correction. “Is the boss in?” “Actually, he’s at lunch.”

As opposed to what: theoretically he’s at lunch? Or have you been lying to me and now admit that he is, indeed, out of the office? Either way, it makes no sense and should be relegated to the status of other, more common, sentence fillers as “like” or “uh” or “um” or “er”.

And why are traffic reporters always so happy? Radio or television, it matters not: reports of accidents, gridlock, and any other interminable condition that slows down any hope of timely progress are passed on to us with a smile and a shrug. Maybe it’s because the reporter is in the friendly confines of the studio or blithely passing above the mess in an aircraft. Or maybe the message is softened to assuage our anger over a never-changing traffic problem. Either way, we’re not having fun and should resent the attitude that somehow we should be taking this delay in stride. Perhaps if the conditions didn’t exist every day at the same time, we’d be better able to smile and shrug. But we don’t because it does. I’d be better able to cope if I heard, even one time, “Boy! It sucks out there, folks, and you’d better pack a lunch if you’re heading out today! What the hell is up with our roads?” Now there’s some real-world reporting!

And finally, here’s to those of us who were never all that close to our mother. Yes, it’s Mother’s Day as I write this and I can’t help but envision a large number of folks with guilt over their lack of admiration for the family matriarch. I loved my mother. Hell, she brought me into the world. But I didn’t like her much and there were several periods of estrangement over the years. I bought her the requisite Mother’s Day card, but always picked one with few words and little sentiment. So if you’re in the same boat as I, don’t sweat it. Truth be told, most would admit to something less than enduring harmony with mom (or dad, for that matter).

I was right: I feel much better having released these questions into cyberspace and beyond. Any similar conundrums in your life? If so, send ‘em my way. If nothing else, I can assure you, yet again, that it’s not just you.

Smoke or Substance?

2011-05-02T08:10:00.003-07:00

The Royal family has had its day in the sun and now we can turn back to more serious issues. Or not. Last week, prior to the exchange of vows on Friday, President Obama yet again avowed his nationality by yet again addressing the issue of his birth certificate.

It seems that a small group of folks prefer diatribe over discussion, strife over solution. Short on ideas, they raise issues of little or no consequence that have already been asked and answered. These seemingly innocuous questions pique the interest of a larger group who think “pique” is nothing more than a small dog. Regardless, the media then runs with it because the news cycle has become a 24/7 news circle and electronic editors simply need something, anything, to fill the void. Unconventional media within the blogosphere adds fuel to the fire.

And just like that, the “Birther” movement was born and has flourished despite documentation and assertion to the contrary. As I previously stated, those that raise the original question have nothing else to offer to the conversation. And those that heed the question have limited time to devote to deeper thought. After all, “Dancing With the Survivor” is coming on in ten minutes.

While a minority of society as a whole (25%) puts any credence into this particular debate, a majority of Republicans (58%) believe or, at least, think Obama was born somewhere outside of the US. Though we may chuckle at such a state of political affairs, closer examination reveals a concern and threat to our two party system.

The Tea Party enjoyed reasonable success in the 2010 mid-term elections and has since pulled the entire Republican Party farther to the right. Primary voters may find this much to their liking, but general elections draw a much more moderate turn-out and this threatens to render the Republican agenda nothing more than an asterisk.

One need only open a daily newspaper from the last few days to find a plethora of challenges to mankind. Be they natural or man-made, financial, legislative, or societal: I find it hard to believe that a significant portion of any political party would find more pleasure in chasing ghosts than offering real-world ideas in trying to further an essential debate.

Do I subscribe to a right-wing philosophy? Not to a large degree, but I’m also not crazy about an unfettered left-wing ideology steering our ship of state. The value of the two parties is exhibited in the ensuing debate and compromise. It’s hard to debate and compromise with a group more focused on distracting non-issues, though.

Hopefully, the Birthers will accept the fallacies of their argument and move on to more pressing issues. Then again, a new question is taking shape surrounding Obama’s grades prior to his entrance into Harvard. Time will tell if “Schoolers” rise to prominence. I certainly hope they wither on the vine in short order, but cannot claim any confidence in their demise.

It matters not which political philosophy one might prefer. If you are prone to fall for tactics that serve to divert your attention from the matter-at-hand, you are ripe for the front row of the nearest magic act where the charlatan on the stage seeks your attention to the decoy hand while the other is doing the more serious business. Apparently, many today are more eager to delve into sensationalism and subterfuge than material fact and meatier topics.

Personal opinions of our current leadership should not deter us from seeking a path out of the thicket we currently occupy. Paying attention to detractors for detraction’s sake should insult anyone paying the least little bit of attention to the world around us. Yes, there is a place in our day for regal matrimony and reality television. I’d suggest, though, that we find other concerns that merit a higher position on our priority lists.

Fault Lines

2011-04-25T07:41:00.000-07:00

If we were somehow able to map out the differences that currently exist within our society I think it would closely resemble a depiction of California's seismic faults. Economic, religious, ethnic, and political differences have turned into divisions. What was once "us against them" is now "me against you" with "you" representing the rest of society. Our sense of community has devolved into a survival of the fittest mentality and that is bad for everyone.

While there's plenty of blame to go around, let's start with the individuals within our society. That's right: you and me. Regular readers know how I abhor labels as they tend to encourage us to draw premature conclusions. So, in lieu of Republican or Democrat, I'm going to use "left leaning" and "right leaning" (LL or RL). LL's tend to believe in a government, be it local, state or federal, providing a framework within which the public good is served. From law enforcement to infrastructure to programs that provide for the elderly, infirm, or needy, these entities rely on a tax structure so as to fund the various programs needed to carry out their respective missions. RL's, on the other hand, prefer to rely on their own wits, talent, and good fortune to make their own way in the world. Small government, low taxes, and few public assistance programs are their picture of a perfect world. And, as one moves from the middle of the political highway, the more strident and resistant to compromise they both become.

Economic standing, likewise creates division between the haves and have-nots. The haves are more often RL's as they are in little or no need of assistance from their government. They embrace the "if I made it, why can't you" ideology and use it to rationalize their reluctance to part with anything but the smallest possible portion of their accumulated wealth. LL's tend to be more sympathetic to those that have yet to find their way and accept the premise that blind luck sometimes plays a more important role than talent in eventual success. As such, they recognize society's need for a safety net.

Religious tenets add to the mix that serve only to divide us further. Christians, jews, muslims, or whatever: each promotes the notion that their way is the only way and others must be converted or treated as pariahs. No other cause has spilled as much blood throughout time and the world as religion. Yet, without it, we further lose sight of doing the right thing for all regardless of whether it is the right thing for us individually.

Much to divide us, wouldn't you say? So we look to our elected leaders to sort everything out and lead us to a tomorrow that is sunnier and more hopeful. Why? Our form of government is referred to as "representative". As such, our legislative bodies are but a reflection of the society as a whole. So, what with our deep divisions, how can we be surprised that our state and federal legislators are just as polarized? As if that wasn't enough, these folks seek a career out of their political aspirations and are pulled in diametrically opposed directions: doing what's best for the country may not be best for their constituents and that puts successful re-election at risk. Closing a military base, for instance, may be good for budget trimming, but closing the base in my district is terrible for my voters. Go close somebody else's base.

I think we can all agree that times are tough for most of us and perhaps that is why we, as a society, are seeking instant solutions from our political leaders. Polls show that popularity numbers for Congress and the President are all lower as well as our outlook for better days ahead. The problem, it seems to me, lies in this seismic fault line that refuses to budge. Movement, or compromise, in any direction seems out of the question until major forces build up to the point of crisis. The ensuing change is reckless and often cataclysmic in its unintended consequences. Is this a way for intelligent folks to go about solving problems? Apparently so, in light of recent gains by Tea Party politicos who take pride in their refusal to move from a position far on the political right. Combine a society of individuals concerned only about their personal needs and a government comprised of individuals seeking to please their voters by catering to those needs and we are left with a grid lock of seismic proportion.

The other type of fault line is that spoken by many of our elected officials who blame their opposites for the stale-mate. "It's not my fault, you know. If only my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would budge, we could all move forward." This fault-finding and finger-pointing only exacerbates an already untenable situation.

Should you have a question, I am a LL. While I believe that spending needs to be reined in, I also believe that a more equitable division of the tax burden is in order. But I don't believe the two must be addressed simultaneously. I believe that the tax structure is a priority today and the "readjustment" of social programs can wait until more of us are back on our feet. You don't take one crutch away from a cripple until the time comes when that cripple can manage with one. A slashing of established programs for the less fortunate at a time when they are most needed is inhumane, short-sighted, and caters to the visceral instincts that are all too common today. "Screw them...save me" should not be a goal we strive to attain.

Unplugged

2011-04-18T08:10:00.000-07:00

Times are tough and many folks are out of work. Those remaining in the workforce are expected to do more and more with less and less. We refer to this as productivity and never before has it been as high. "At least I have job" is a statement we hear each day. But the quality of our work and the personal fulfillment it provides have fallen victim to this never-ending push for greater productivity. Why?

I'd say the root of this problem lies in the fact that our morale is suffering. But shouldn't our morale be high if we're grateful to have a job? One might think, but such linear thinking loses its strength within the human equation. And, to make matters worse, there is no column on any corporate spread sheet where we can quantify employee morale. We also find labor on the cost side of the ledger when, in fact, these folks are the one ultimately responsible for the success of a company. As a result, those we look to for leadership and inspiration come to see us as impediments to greater riches.

While there is a specific area of our economy called the "service industry", I would submit that all enterprises provide a service of some sort, be it directly providing something to the end user or making a box that holds a product. If you have a customer, you're in the service industry, at least for the purposes of this discussion. Additionally, if you are responsible for even one employee, you are a manager. You may not be thought of as management, but your underling's morale is highly dependent on how you approach your responsibilities.

OK, so how have we gotten to the point of higher effort with less satisfaction. Those that control our work environment have become disconnected, unplugged if you will, with what it is like to be down in the trenches. The pressures from their bosses, who are similarly unplugged, are transferred to the next lower rung on the corporate ladder. As Stephen King so aptly called it in his Dark Tower series, they have forgotten the face of their father.

This disconnect leads to a feeling of under-appreciation and directly impacts what we do and how we do it. I'd say most of us routinely give 150% to our jobs when we feel good about what we do. In a less than ideal workplace that number falls off to a level closer to 100%. True, we are still operating at a high level, but the difference is noticeable. And with an unplugged supervisor, the expectations increase even more. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is a motto most of us are familiar with and, while the worker bees laugh at such sentiment, the higher-ups find it quite logical.

Unfortunately, there's not much the recipients of such corporate mentality can do about changing the culture they're trapped within. What is needed is an illuminated management team that recognizes the value within the workforce and seeks ways to maximize its potential. Does that come down to higher wages? Although pay may be an important part of the puzzle, other, less expensive, methods exist that can equally raise morale and, subsequently, success for all involved.

Perhaps the most notable example, within the airline industry at least, is Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines. Herb ran that show for a good while and was once asked how he kept his customers happy. "I don't worry about my customers," he replied. "I worry about my employees and they take care of the customers." Now Southwest is a highly unionized airline so don't start talking about how such success is impossible under such circumstances. Herb simply understood how to treat his employees so they would excel. I think that he also accepted the reality of unions and decided to work with them instead of against. This approach has created a consistently successful company. Is this example exclusive to the airline industry? Of course not. All that is needed is a manager who fully recognizes what is required to get the most from his subordinates.

"Well, when the economy turns around, things will improve, you know." No, I don't know that nor am I hopeful that an epiphany will strike the boardrooms of America and usher in a new era of enlightenment. What might happen, though, is an epidemic of "take this job and shove it-itis" that results in an exodus from companies that remain unplugged to those with a better appreciation for the value of their employees and a resultant increase in their morale. Time alone will tell if our managers come to realize that spending a few pennies on their charges pays off handsomely in dollars.

In the meantime, it is important to try and find a ray of sunshine in every workday amid the environment provided by your bosses. Do it not for them or their bottom line: do it for yourself and your family. For your sanity, too. After all, at the end of the day, it all comes down to you and the person in the mirror.

Who's Who?

2011-04-10T09:18:00.003-07:00

It used to be that we could easily tell the good guys from the bad. Westerns always portrayed the evil-doers in black hats. Other genres in the “reel world” have used assorted physical characteristics so the audience could readily identify the forces of good and evil. The real world, though, is less than cooperative. Much has been made of civilian casualties on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and, as of late, Libya. This disturbs many, including myself, but I can’t help but think my angst is of a different orientation. (What a surprise, huh?)

There was a time when wars were fought by armies clad in an appropriate uniform. This allowed any observer to distinguish friend from foe and civilian from soldier. The World Wars and Korea are probably the most recent examples. Viet Nam, on the other hand, was a guerilla war where our enemies wore no specific uniform and harbored no age or gender bias. Men, women, and children could well be an adversary. Not coincidentally, it became a conflict with no winner. The battles we are currently waging are eerily similar in that Iraqis, Afghans, or Libyan rebels are made up of folks in nondescript clothing. Is it any wonder that civilian casualties mount in such arenas?

And who’s to say the casualties are civilians? Couldn’t they just as easily be combatants? Perhaps it is to the benefit of one side to claim the other is shooting civilians when, in reality, no one may know for sure. I’d say civilian casualty claims in such encounters are made purely for publicity purposes. And, to make it worse, the US usually offers up an apology!

Look, when all hell breaks loose, the civilians hit the road or hunker down. If they choose to walk down Main Street at high noon as a gunfight is brewing, they should not be surprised when a bullet misses the intended target and finds them, instead. I’ll grant you that innocent bystanders sometimes fall prey to a stray bullet, but their choice of location puts them in harms way from the get-go. On the other hand, the individual deemed to be a civilian, i.e. non-combatant, could well have a trick (or weapon) up the sleeve. Can we really blame anyone for shooting first and asking questions later?

Friendly fire is, unfortunately, a major problem in these current conflicts mainly because of the lack of a front. Everyone is running in every direction so it’s hard to tell an ally from an adversary. Ground fighting is hard enough; just think what it’s like from the air. Last week, Libyan rebels were inadvertently strafed by aircraft who thought they were firing on tanks from the pro-Libyan forces. True, the rebels had never before used tanks and now they are going to display a pink banner on all their vehicles to make identification easier. The unintentional support for breast cancer aside, I’d say Gaddafi’s forces will soon be sporting similar pink banners.

War is more than hell: it is horrific and the thought of innocent civilians getting caught up in the carnage should surprise no one. Likewise, some fighters are destined to be slain at the hand of fellow soldiers. I can think of no way to avoid these events and can think of no reason to gloss over them in the name of “civilized” combat. There is no such thing and the more repulsed the world becomes, the less the chance of future conflict.

Especially ironic is the fact that, once long ago, a rag-tag group of militia men took the fight to a highly organized, superior force. The militia wore nothing of note and hid behind trees and such while the enemy marched down the road. Such was the Revolutionary War and the result could not have been more decisive. Should it come as any surprise that our military forces, in full battle regalia, are being sorely tested by an outmanned, rag-tag bunch of fighters? Are you my friend or my foe? Oh, for the days of the black hat...

The Time of Our Life

2011-04-03T21:33:00.000-07:00

Our life span is generally measured in years while the events that materially affect it take much less time to occur. Not months nor days nor hours nor even minutes. No, the times that truly describe our life take but a moment though they are responsible for the twists and turns we inevitably experience.

I’ve written in the past of “marking moments”. The moments I’m referring to today have a slightly different meaning. These moments are out of our control yet exert tremendous control over our futures. Winning a lottery, for instance. True, we played the numbers, but most of us waste little time hoping for our ship to come in. So, when that ship does come in, what a moment and, yes, it changes our life. We tend to consider such moments as golden ones, but the sadness in our past is privy to a moment, too. The death of a loved one may well be one of the saddest moments imaginable. No, goodness has no exclusivity when it comes to the times in our life. And good or bad, these moments change the rest of our life, or at least a good portion of it.

"Big deal," you say. "So what?" The “deal” lies in the fact that, as I stated earlier, we measure in longer time spans and, in so doing, miss the magnitude of these moments and the power they possess. The tsunami survivors in Japan have had their lives inalterably affected in the blink of an eye. Others involved in natural (or manmade) disasters have experienced similar episodes. Others, still, have averted similar fates by the merest of margins. Yup, another moment.

These moments significantly change the course of our lives and we need to accept their existence. Otherwise, we take our quiet, organized life for granted and cry, “Foul” when faced with the harsh reality of setback or failure. And conversely, events that may change our life for the better could well be short-lived. What I propose is that we take the time to recognize how frail life can be. Our moments will be both bitter and blissful, but they are the mile markers we use to describe ourselves. While we usually look to the calendar to keep track of time, a stopwatch may be more appropriate.

And finally, when it all comes to an end, we pass on in a moment that will inexorably change the lives of others. Moments, folks: they are what we are truly made of and they are what truly defines the times of our lives.

Risky Business

2011-03-27T21:14:00.001-07:00

While this question was central to an unforgettable scene from the “Marathon Man”, it remains central to many things going on about us. The nuclear reactors in Japan, our radiation monitoring systems, and sleepy air traffic controllers have made the news in the past week alone. The list could go on for a good while with one common thread: are we as safe as those “in the know” purport? The answer, on the other hand, is short and unsweetened: no.

Surprised? I can’t, for the life of me, understand why that might be. Think back to any household chore that involves power tools or ladders. Hopefully, before embarking on this simple task, a plan is thought out to ensure no broken bones or missing appendages at the completion of said project. Unfortunately, most plans have hidden flaws that arise at the most inopportune moment and sometime result in the very things we tried to prevent.

So the only difference between our foray onto the roof (and into the Emergency Room)and the more serious scenarios previously mentioned is the scope of the effort and the greater ramifications of those hidden flaws. How can one guarantee that a nuclear reactor and its surrounding area is absolutely safe? One can only plan for known problems using known construction techniques. Fast forward a few decades after new problems have been identified and new construction techniques have evolved. It’s too late to re-build our facility so the best we can do is continue whistling through the graveyard while employing some sort of stop-gap measures. The same applies to earthquake-proof buildings or anything else followed by “-proof” in the press release.

A few days ago, a controller fell asleep on duty at Washington’s Reagan Airport. He was the only one on duty despite concerns voiced by controllers and their union. Why? Because it was cheaper and, after all, nothing had happened like this before. So now we’ll have an investigation and put two controllers on duty for graveyard shifts. I can remember tales of flight crews going to sleep in the cockpit and overflying their destination. So much for multiple folks solving a problem, huh? No, nothing is absolutely safe and most of us realize this fact every morning as we climb out of bed. As soon as our feet hit the floor, we’re taking on some sort of risk.

The nature of a disaster, be it natural or man-made, is bad enough, but insult is added to injury when our experts, CEO’s, and political leaders take to the podium to “reassure” us that all is under control. Why is it, then, that they seem to regularly tell us that yesterday was worse than thought while guaranteeing tomorrow to be better than today? And why do we listen? Well, we don’t seem to be listening with much attention as the credibility of those we look to for answers erodes. Yet they continue on, oblivious to the fact that their constituents can take hard truth and, in fact, prefer it over fanciful best-case scenarios that fail to materialize.

It was recently reported that almost half of the radiation monitors on the West Coast are not working. The EPA claims this is due to “quality review”. What the hell does that mean? At a time when radiation measurement is highly desirable, we continue to hear that all is well. Remember the old “Fool me once...” adage? (No, not the one W. mangled. The real one.) Somewhere in these speeches and forecasts lies truth and sensible avenues of recourse. How to separate the grains of wheat from the chaff, though, is the real challenge. And, as events become more complex, we realize that most of us aren’t smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. No, we’re still up on that roof with a broken (or missing) finger wishing we had anchored the ladder better. So maybe, we think, we’re better off not believing anything anybody says. It’s safer, right?

Whether or not we continue our nuclear power agenda or not, we must all realize that any great undertaking has risks that are in keeping with the rewards. A solution to the nuclear problem is elusive, to say the least. And convincing the powers-that-be that honesty is the best policy may be a pipe dream. Regarding the controller staffing, though, I can offer a way to avoid these lapses of consciousness: take that lone controller and give him a pair of safety glasses. Then put a carrion bird into the tower cab with him. Vultures and such are only interested in dead things so, should our controller nod off, the condor will start in on dinner. That should wake anyone up, assuming they could fall asleep in the first place! The glasses? Everyone knows that the eyes are usually the first course.

Legacies

2011-03-20T20:47:00.000-07:00

I’ve been involved in aviation for over 40 years and, unfortunately, have seen friends and acquaintances within this arena meet their untimely end. It has not been unusual to hear of a fellow aviator “flying west”, but a rarity, indeed, to bid farewell to more than one at a time. Last month, two pilots I know from two very different areas of my aviation life were killed in a crash.

I was fortunate to have known both Chuck and Tyler, albeit in very dissimilar conditions. Chuck was a contemporary at the airline and I assisted him with union work in the late ’90’s. He was a bit senior to me so I never had the chance to fly with him, but always admired his commitment to making the profession better than when he found it. Tyler was a local pilot who I’ve known for the past ten years, or so. The crash that took his life coincided with his 25th birthday. He was probably the closest thing to a natural aviator as I’ve come across. He was flying well before his 16th birthday and, immediately upon turning that magical age that allows for solo flight, he soloed not one, but five different aircraft. Too many pilots, believing their own press releases, have been known to say, “I’ll fly it and the box it came in.” I can think of none other than Tyler who could thus boast and deliver upon it. I’m equally proud to say that he was far too modest to ever make such a claim.

The passing of these two at decidedly different points in their lives led me to think about their legacy. This is a term usually reserved to parents or celebrities of some sort and speaks to the void left by their absence. Neither Chuck nor Tyler were fathers. Nor did their demise warrant coverage (other than the crash) on any front page save for the local papers. Likewise, no other media source reported on their deaths in any detail. So much for a legacy, huh?

Contrary to this conventional wisdom, we all leave a footprint and, in passing, leave a lasting impression upon some of those with whom we have associated throughout our lives. We need not be famous nor wealthy nor a procreator. The only prerequisite is that we’ve lived to the best of our abilities and, in so doing, touched those around us. As such, both Chuck and Tyler leave a rich legacy to those that had the good fortune to know them in any capacity whatsoever.

I will always remember Chuck as dedicated and passionate. This fervor allowed him to question the status quo and be a catalyst for progress. I have no doubt that he carried this attitude into all aspects of his life and others are better for having known him.

Tyler was old beyond his years. His calm demeanor coupled with his unbridled love and commitment to aviation set him apart from most birdmen. While my aviation career has spanned more years than his, I’ve no doubt that Tyler had ventured into more aspects than I would have ever dreamed. He was the consummate aviator who will always serve as the epitome of excellence and devotion.

And so it is with each of us. We live our lives and interact with many through the course of our daily activities. Many remember us despite the fact that we may not recall them and some will be changed by the effect that we have upon them. At the very least, that is the legacy we each leave to humanity. Whether or not our passing is noted in publication or by a family left behind: our legacy lives on in those who remain. Perhaps it is best that we are unaware of its existence lest it affect our behavior. Regardless, let no one feel that a death leaves no void. My world is diminished with the loss of the two I’ve written of today. Nevertheless, in certain ways, I am their legacy as I live out my allotted days. And so it is with each of us...

De-Sensitivity Training

2011-03-14T08:35:00.000-07:00

As I arrived at my jet for a departure last week, one of my Flight Attendants asked me if I would like a Brazilian soda. He showed me a can that I didn’t recognize and I assumed it was left over from an international flight. With my tongue firmly in cheek, I said, “No, I try to avoid drinking anything from third world countries”. Several minutes later, he took me aside and told me that he was offended by my comment as he was from a third world country.

Rather than pursue the matter, I stated that no offense was intended and moved on. My company, much like most others, has created an offense-free work environment where almost anyone can take umbrage at almost anything said, regardless of the tone or context. With a relatively short time before reaching my retirement date, I chose discretion over valor in letting his remark go unchallenged.

But this venue is anything but offense-free, so allow me to vent a bit and offer a counter strategy to blunt the ever-encroaching politically correct police. First of all, Brazil is far from a third world country: it is the 8th largest economy in terms of GDP and the 7th when comparing purchasing power. If my flight attendant friend took his offense based on his Brazilian roots, he needs to take a bit more pride in his heritage. If, on the other hand, he hails from another country that doesn’t enjoy such a high degree of success, how am I to know? Once again, without further discussion, nothing is learned and no one is better served. He considers me an insensitive prick and I see him as a hyper-sensitive pain in the ass suffering from a shortage of self-esteem.

So be it, but what can be done to stymie such exchanges? I propose a new organization: the NAAYP, or the National Association for the Awareness of You People. That’s right: you people. You see, to everyone else, I qualify as “you people”. The categorization could be one of many traits: ethnicity, religion, skin color, income status, political affiliation. The list is endless. Regardless, I am “you people” to others just as they are “you people” to me. So what’s so great about the NAAYP?

Well, the first benefit is the slow realization that everyone has preconceived notions about most everyone else in one form or another and most of these notions are false. Rather than hold them in, let’s share them with our friends. “You people sure know how to drink.” “Why don’t you people learn to take better care of yourselves?” “The world would be a better place if you people knew how to get along.” Or, with a sigh and a shrug, “You people...!”

It wouldn’t take very long before we started laughing at such observations instead of reacting with pretended offense and haughty indignation. And, in so doing, we’d eventually get over ourselves and accept each other with a bit more understanding and less resentment. Would “you people” then disappear from our lexicon? No, unfortunately, there will always be “you people” in the form of nay-sayers and such. But their numbers will be less and they will continue to offer comedic relief for the rest of us folks.

Finally, when we’ve achieved this new level of interaction and awareness, we could change the name of our group to the NAAWP: the National Association for the Advancement of We People. We people are all a bit different, but we share common traits that should be embraced rather than emphasizing differences to exploit and shun. We people all bring unique qualities to the table of humanity and, once recognized, we can achieve great things together.

What Are You?

2011-03-06T21:29:00.000-08:00

It seems that most of us prefer short descriptives in categorizing our position on current events and the challenges they provide. You know: left, right, moderate. Or, if you prefer, Republican, Democrat, Independent. (Yes, I know I omitted the Tea Party. It is simply a faction of the Republican Party and can be found way over there on the right of the rest of the right.) Even “for” or “against” can be heard when offering a broad brush opinion. They all have one trait in common: they’re simple, short, and clear cut. The problem is that many of the issues before us today are anything but simple or short or clear.

So let’s take a short quiz to truly ascertain our priorities and political allegiances. Let’s start with the right to life: are you opposed to abortion rights and believe life is sacred? If so, how do you feel about capital punishment? How about gun control? Are you a member of the NRA and believe that guns don’t kill people, but only people kill people? If so, are you repulsed that a maniac can obtain a weapon capable of firing a large number of uninterrupted rounds and use it in a school?

If you support a free market system, I guess the latest spike in gas prices is causing you no angst nor financial pressure. We can all trust corporate America to provide safe and healthy products, can’t we? Who needs regulators and inspectors? After all, they only stand in the way of a truly open market-based economy.

Do you want a smaller, less intrusive government and a balanced budget with no deficit? Are you ready to “adjust” your Medicare and Social Security privileges to achieve that goal? How about unemployment benefits or aid to dependent children?

And what about all those bureaucracies, be they public or private? Surely we can pare them down a bit. But wait a minute...don’t most of us fill some sort of square within a corporate flow-chart? We’re necessary, though, aren’t we? They need our contribution, don’t they?

All of a sudden, that plain and simple description of our values gets a bit muddy, doesn’t it? As well it should. You see, many, if not most, of us move about the spectrum as the conversation changes. And sometimes we move even within a given topic. That’s because any issue at hand is much like a diamond. Or a lump of coal. Either has multiple facets and each can be flawless or seriously flawed. It all depends upon our perspective at that particular moment. To think that the world is simple is overly simplistic.

I’d say that our positions can be boiled down to two: the theoretical and the realistic. If we are not drawing unemployment benefits it is easy to say that those programs are needless. Once we lose our job, though, that theory gives way to the reality of our situation.

I suggest we use a more relaxed definition when attempting to pigeon-hole our position or anyone else’s. Me? I claim to be a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. And I know that my positions could well change depending on the realities I’m currently facing in my life. Now, some might call that schizophrenic. I prefer “complicated” and see it as more befitting in a world where nothing is as simple as we’d like.

Commercially Incorrect

2011-02-28T08:52:00.001-08:00

We all know, to varying degrees, that some words and/or actions do not sit well in social situations. The “F” word, for example. Such language or behavior is referred to as politically incorrect. I would submit that recent events in the public arena have rendered some words as “commercially incorrect”. Specifically, the “U” word: union.

The Governor and a majority of state legislators in Wisconsin seem hell bent on crippling the unions representing public employees in the state. We’re not talking about mere concessions to mitigate a budget deficit. We’re talking about a unilateral dismantling of the right to engage in collective bargaining. Similar administrations in Africa and the Middle East are currently under fire for similar heavy handed activities.

Those of you familiar with my opinions know that I’ve never understood why a labor union is characterized as the anti-Christ. Unions were formed to withstand imposed work rules, pay, and benefits on a group of workers with no say in their future. Never has a union been formed and then given rise to a company. Labor has always been reactive and always will.

The collective bargaining process so opposed in Wisconsin created contracts that both signatories knew were unsustainable. And both knew that they would both be sitting on a beach somewhere when the whole house of cards came crashing down. We’re all too familiar with similar dealings between labor and management within General Motors and this scenario is no different.

Are there successful companies with no unionized workforce? Of course. Just as there are successful companies with highly unionized employee groups. The credit goes to the corporate boardroom and the executives that accepted the facts as they are, not as they had hoped them to be. Are unions immune from graft and corruption at the upper levels? Of course not; no more so than corporate executives exposed to the same temptations. But at least the greed and corruption are more evenly distributed among all participants if a union is on the property. Ugly, I know, but we need to accept the nature of all beasts.

Many holding the reins of power lament that dealing with a union is laborious (no pun intended) and time consuming. Such is the case when both sides of a debate are accorded an opinion. I imagine agricultural in the South was much easier when slaves provided the labor. Sad to say, but many of our corporate and political leaders lack that quality of “leadership” and simply want to travel the road of "my way or the highway" (pun intended) because it’s easier.

Being a union member is not akin to receiving the keys to the kingdom. Most of my years as an airline pilot have been spent within the confines of a concessionary contract. To think that union membership is not fraught with reality checks and ensuing concessions is simply untrue. But to rob a group of employees, be they private or public, of their rights to bargain in good faith is the height of despotism and cannot be tolerated any more at home than abroad.

Some say that public employees should not have the right to strike. Federal employees are forbidden to withhold their services. The air traffic controllers found that out in the late 1980’s when they were fired for doing so by then-president Reagan. Ronnie was given all sorts of credit for busting the union, but all he did was enforce existing law. I cannot say that such a law covering a state’s employees is in order, but I do believe that such changes must occur, once again, through the avenues of bargaining.

And one more thing: where were the citizens of Wisconsin when such unsustainable contracts were being written? Watching TV? Listening to their favorite tunes? This detached kind of democratic government which does nothing until one’s personal ox is gored runs counter to what democracy really requires. We must remain engaged in the processes that ultimately affect us all. To single out a specific career field (teachers) and demonize their right to collectively bargain will surely come back to haunt us all. Many other states are watching so as to accurately gauge the level of resistance. In other words, your ox may well be next.

Oh, should Wisconsin really want to look into suspicious monopolies, perhaps they should take a closer look at the Fitzgerald combine: Scott leads the state Senate. His brother, Jeff, is Speaker of the state House. And their father, Stephen, was recently named the new chief of the State Troopers at the age of 68. Talk about a machine! It kinda makes a simple labor union look like small potatoes, doesn’t it?

Ball of Confusion

2011-02-20T19:05:00.000-08:00

My head is spinning as events unfold around the globe at breakneck speed. The demonstrations against authoritarian governments in the Middle East and Africa continue to grow and seem ready to spread to China. Other countries untouched by such activity are nervous while wondering if they might be next. And here in the good old US of A the governor of Wisconsin seeks to stifle the bargaining rights of public employee unions under the guise of "reigning in costs". So, while we have folks in other countries revolting against years of tyranny, some in this country are fighting efforts to unilaterally rob them of their rights to negotiate pay and benefits.

There have been weeks when I've been hard pressed to find a suitable topic for this space. All of a sudden, I'm overwhelmed with competing themes as noteworthy stories flood the airwaves and front pages. What is to be made of this extraordinary confluence?

Perhaps it is nothing more than timing. After all, many have suffered under harsh regimes for decades. Now, though, the opportunity to communicate in cyberspace has stirred the embers of resistance into a new-found demand for change. No country seems to be immune as long-silent majorities find their voice and seek a fairer shake from their governments.

The idea that budgetary battles in Wisconsin could logically lead to stripping unions of their power has led to an unprecedented public backlash. True, contracts can always be renegotiated, but to suggest that teachers unions and other organizations representing public employees simply lose their rights to bargain invites such demonstrations. And rightfully so.

No entity is immune from public outcry in today's world of Twitter and Facebook and all their associated social sites. Coordination is as close as a text and such camaraderie creates a fervor not recently seen nor easily quashed. Whether we're talking of a foreign dictator or an elected representative within our borders, heavy handed behavior is no longer silently tolerated.

No one can predict what our world will look like in the next year nor who will be ruling countries currently in turmoil. It doesn't matter, though, because the bigger picture illustrates that all peoples, regardless of status or station, can exert a powerful force simply by speaking up. It also shows that those who have held a tight grip on power are generally reluctant to release it without a fight. Good lessons, to be sure, and ones which should not go unnoticed by those in this country attempting to wrest power from political foes by disguising their agendas as financial restraint.

Pick Your Poison

2011-02-13T22:51:00.000-08:00

Last week a research study was released suggesting that diet soda contributes to heart disease. Yet the latest example of undesirable side effects. Red wine? Good for your heart, but your liver doesn't care for alcohol, does it? The Japanese diet apparently leads to low cholesterol, but many subscribers suffer from hypertension.

No, there's little, if any, out there in our dietetic cornucopia that has no deleterious effect. And if you think that's bad, let's leave the kitchen and wander into our bathroom's medicine cabinet. Here we find limitless examples of potions that, while treating one ailment, often create others.

If you take a statin drug for cholesterol you must also submit to periodic liver tests. That's because statins can raise hell with it. I took a statin for ten years at half dosage to combat what my doctor felt was high cholesterol. I thought the muscle pain I began to experience in my legs when climbing hills was simply old age creeping in, but then recognized it as a possible side effect of the drug. I stopped taking it for a week and, when the leg pain disappeared, the drug disappeared from my shelf. My cholesterol? 223, which is not too bad for a man of my age and a number that I'm willing to accept given the alternative.

I'm one of the lucky ones as I have, so far, escaped the need for other prescription drugs. Many are less fortunate and every drug out there has a side effect which, at the very least, provides the chance for yet another need for another drug. Allergies? Your prescription may cause swelling of the throat and difficulty in breathing. The ones that amaze me the most are those that fall under the "Erectile Dysfunction" category. They may cause nausea and headache. I don't know about you, but when I'm nauseous or a jackhammer is doing a number on my brain, the last thing on my mind is romance!

I'm not here to lecture on the dangers of drugs, but rather to illustrate how we must each become our own best advocate when choosing a given regimen suggested by our doctor (or dietician). Granted, some afflictions are so severe that any risk is acceptable. Others, though, are taken to mitigate minor irritations without so much as a consideration of the possible downside. Take a pill...be happy. Have a diet soda...lose weight.

Whether it be drugs or dining, everything that we ingest has an effect that we'd just as soon do without in addition to the desired benefit that we seek. It's a balancing act, to be sure, but one that demands a greater awareness and participation. Perhaps it can be best summed up by this advice given to me long ago: Moderation in everything (including moderation).

Dominoes

2011-02-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

The events of the past few weeks are unprecedented in their scope or succession as country after country in the Middle East has ousted long-time rulers. Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt see unparalleled uprisings from their citizens who have decided anything is better than the status quo. This domino effect, if you will, must have some sort of common root that has finally tapped into long held resentment. What could it possibly be?

I submit that our seemingly innocuous social networks of Facebook and Twitter are primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Any repressive regime seeks to control the opportunity for its citizenry to communicate in unfettered ways. The fear of reprisals creates an atmosphere where most keep their hopes and aspirations (and frustrations) to themselves. It’s hard to limit such communication in cyberspace and I believe tweets and texts have created the catalyst which has led to almost overnight change within the halls of Mid-East power.

Other countries, in an apparent attempt to avoid similar social unrest, have taken steps to alter their structures. Jordan has fired their cabinet. Pakistan has down-sized theirs and now Iraq’s prime minister al-Maliki has stated that he will not seek re-election. I cannot believe that there is one nation in the region that is not busy trying to be more proactive.

This kind of change is messy, though, and no particular outcome is a certainty. First comes the demonstrations from those that have nothing. These demonstrations are nothing new and historically repressed. Once they begin to catch hold, though, those that have prospered under the current state of affairs take to the streets in support of its continued operation. Clashes ensue and the prospect of a civil war looms. We are seeing that in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities as the struggle continues.

Should despots be thrown from office, the vacuum that follows sometimes presents an environment worse than the previous one. Regardless, once that final straw has been laid upon the camel’s back, nothing else matters save the ousting of the individual seen as responsible for a country’s woes.

To make matters worse, other countries that have turned a blind eye to the dismal state of their allies' domestic affairs must now decide which devil to support: the one known (present) or unknown (future). Mubarak has been considered an ally of America in spite of the harsh tactics doled out to Egyptians. The US must now tread carefully while maintaining the foreign policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Or maybe not...

Maybe it is time to shun this practice of embracing such regimes in the name of some greater good. History shows that we usually suffer from such alliances. How about looking a bit farther down the road and recognizing foreign governments for what they are rather than what we want them to be. Providing foreign aid to a country that is essentially a dictatorship is nothing more than a shakedown in which US dollars are provided in return for a promise of political change at some future date. I think we can say that such extortion, while possibly providing a short-term profit, leads to long-term loss for stability and progress.

In the meantime, I find hope in that such seemingly mindless pursuits involving a "social network" have merit and meaning in a world sorely in need of public involvement.

Taming the Beast

2011-01-30T22:28:00.001-08:00

The latest session of Congress is getting into full swing and much is being said of wrestling the deficit into a more manageable figure. I don't know about you, but I just can't get my head around trillions of dollars. So let's get this down to a level more easily understood: the household budget. After all, each of us is a mini-government and the way we handle our financial challenges should be similar to Uncle Sam's.

A household budget enjoys the freedom of flexibility in that it is not necessarily formalized in writing. I don't itemize my monthly expenditures, but readily recognize whether I have available funds for a specific purchase. Regardless, month in and month out, we manage our cash flow. We do not run a balanced budget as most of us have a mortgage or other obligation that is paid down over time. We do not enjoy a huge cache of reserve funds to cover unexpected expenses, such as a new roof, but have avenues of credit that we would draw upon in the event they were needed. And, most importantly, we realize that this debt must be addressed in a timely manner. We limit our discretionary outlays until such time as that new roof, or whatever, is paid for.

In Washington and our state capitals, it seems that such hard choices are passed on to future administrations. This dearth of leadership has brought us to our current monetary shortfall. How else can one explain the fact that Social Security has gone largely unmodified over the decades? We live longer and rely on fewer to fund the system for an ever growing number of recipients. This is (and has been) unsustainable yet no political will has surfaced to alter the program. A combination of increases in retirement age and decreases in benefits seems unavoidable, but any representative contemplating re-election is loathe to support such a solution. The same mentality extends to other programs that are considered "third rails" and does nothing but deepen our financial hole. In the family, there is no fear of making the hard choice simply because there is no election. The bread-winners make priorities and act accordingly. If only politics was that simple.

We will hear much about a balanced budget amendment. Don't buy into that, either, as it is nothing but smoke and mirrors. New York City and other communities throughout the country have blown through their snow removal budget for the year. A balanced budget amendment would dictate that no more snow removal would occur as the funds were no longer available. See what I mean? The problem lies not in over-spending to cover unplanned events, but in the resistance to making up the shortfall within the next budget.

Some areas of a budget exceed their allotted amount while others have a surplus at the end of the fiscal cycle. Theoretically, of course, because every agency seeks to spend their funds for fear that, if they don't, they'll get less next year. Yet another example of how the system encourages continued expansion and abuse.

We read about state budgets in similar stress (only four states have no deficit for 2010). Many governors talk about returning power to counties and other, smaller districts. This is yet another way of passing the buck because the state won't be footing the bill any longer. And the county has no money, either. Not much of a deficit reduction plan, is it?

Cities, states, and the federal government get their money from tax revenues that come primarily from sales and real estate assessments. We all know that the housing market has lost much of it's value and, what with the ensuing recession, folks aren't spending as much. It should come as no surprise that every public sector is scrambling for money while trying to maintain an expected level of service.

We can also expect to hear the continued rhetoric of spending less. Last week's State of the Union address spoke of "investing" in our future. Opponents of such largess equated the term with "spending". If you spend $10 for two cups of coffee, you've spent $10. But if you take that same $10 and buy a computer program that helps your kids learn, you've made an investment in their future. Not all spending is bad and, much like our leaky roof, we must continue to invest if we are to hold out any hope for a better tomorrow.

It's time to tighten our proverbial belts a notch or two and suck it up for a period of time until our financial ships are returned to calmer waters. Yes, our ox will get gored, along with everyone else's. And we need leaders rather than politicians. Folks that will ignore politics for the good of the country. I'd say that offers us a better outcome than the partisan-politics-oriented picking fly poop out of pepper, wouldn't you?

Sociopathic Capitalism

2011-01-23T20:20:00.000-08:00

Those of you familiar with my musings know that I include the lack of corporate morality as a root cause for many of today’s ills. Today, I’d like to zero in on a more specific area, albeit related: capitalism without conscience.

Capitalism makes our economic engine churn. Historically, entities interested in making money found it extremely advantageous to make something that others would want to purchase. Nothing harmful, mind you, because any success would be short-lived once customers started falling by the wayside. Also, to be considered a good neighbor, there would be no disposing of toxins, etc. in an unsafe manner. In other words: conscience strode hand-in-hand with profitability and long-term viability. And this was a good thing.

Over time, however, “long-term” was redefined as this fiscal year or perhaps even a quarter as executive compensation escalated and golden parachutes became the exit of preference from any boardroom. All of a sudden, making money now took precedence over making money the right way. Manufacturing was sent off-shore because, after all, making something here required commitment and a large, expensive labor force.

Small, family businesses were not immune as they were beset by children loathe to follow in their ancestral endeavors. With no one to carry on the legacy, many enterprises were shuttered or sold to conglomerates who had long ago forsaken any whit of conscience. And the wheel continued to turn.

We now find ourselves in a world where, while we continue to extol the virtues of capitalism, we find much of our “capital” going to (or coming from) foreign nations. We no longer make many things of substance, our unionized workforce is below 12%, the middle class is shrinking, and anyone with something to sell finds that few on the home-front have available cash. Why? It might be because the financial sector has recently grown at an alarming rate as an economic substitute for manufacturing. Banks became too big to fail and enjoyed the luxury of a government bailout as they teetered on the ledge of insolvency. Now they can get almost interest-free money from the Federal Reserve and then immediately put it back into the government through the purchase of bonds. It’s a no-lose investment with guaranteed return. Why loan the same money to some business that may default?

American companies are behaving no better: they are currently sitting on roughly $2 trillion in cash. Why not invest this money into manufacturing, etc? Well, investment is occurring, but not within our borders. It’s just too expensive, you see, and what with the expectations of the shareholders, it makes more sense to build abroad.

The arguments above make perfect financial sense, but leave out the conscience that is most important if capitalism is to flourish once again. In the meantime, the middle class continues to whither from a lack of skilled positions available and the gap between haves and have-nots continues to widen. No longer are managers interested in long-term success for their company or their employees or their community. They are concerned with a bottom line that provides them with the opportunity of early retirement.

Some might argue that capitalism never had a conscience and never will (or should). And they might be spot-on. Maybe globalization has led us to our current malaise. As world economies settle to the lowest common denominator, it stands to reason that ours would suffer the most. If so, is there any reason to expect a return to our golden days?

Our elected leaders continue to ramble on about job creation, but I’m hard pressed to see how any legislative effort can coerce the commercial world into doing something that seems to reduce their financial gain. Until they realize that there is more at stake than money, this sociopathic model of capitalism will continue to exist. Much to the detriment of those seeking what was once known as the American dream.

Violence and the Media

2011-01-17T09:42:00.000-08:00

The past week's coverage of the carnage in Tucson left me wondering: what of the memorials for Bryan Cirigliano? Or Victor James? You may well ask, "Who the hell are they?" and rightly so. These gentlemen are just two of the nine that were killed in the August shooting rampage in a Manchester, Connecticut beer distributorship. Don't feel badly about not recognizing their names: I had to look them up, too. And therein lies my point.

Public mayhem is nothing new. Whether it occurs in the workplace or society in general, numerous cases can be found regularly. The primary difference between these other instances and Tucson is the media frenzy. So what caused the frenzy? Could it be the number of dead and wounded or the notoriety of those involved? I call it a "quantity or quality" question that apparently determines the amount of media coverage devoted to the scene.

Why does a congresswoman need to be shot, or a Federal judge or a nine year old girl killed before we start to have a conversation about events of this nature? Why didn't the nine folks in Connecticut merit the same attention last August? Were their deaths less noteworthy? Were their memorials unimportant? Have we become so callous to seemingly random violence that the more "normal, everyday" shootings fail to move us towards addressing the underlying issues? It sure seems so.

Don't get me wrong: the memorials and media coverage in Tucson are appropriate. I suggest that the coverage of other, similar events is lacking due either due to a lower number of casualties or an absence of celebrity within the victim list. The saddest part, I'm afraid, is the fact that you and I have little or no control over who the media turns towards and how much coverage is considered adequate.

We do, however, have the option of extolling our representatives to delve further into the root causes of such incidents and seeking remedies. Some would argue for greater mental health support services while others, perhaps, would seek greater control over firearms and ammunition. Both have valid concerns (and positions) and I'm sure that other ideas could equally contribute to the debate.

We seem to be an angry, polarized society these days. Some have an axe to grind while others seek only to swing the axe in a random manner. Regardless, we must strive to recognize the danger signs that each and every incident provides rather than ignoring those that fail to live up to some artificial standard of attention.

Prophet or Pessimist?

2011-01-09T22:01:00.000-08:00

Of all the expressions of art, I believe that which looks into the future holds the most curiosity. After all, as a rule, art imitates life. A sensible state of affairs when considering that most artists draw their inspiration from people and things in the real world. But that which draws on assumptions of a future day has nothing but guesswork to guide it. Music has “In the Year 2525” and paintings have often dealt with unheard of vistas. Television has “Star Trek”, film has “Star Wars”, and both have much company in their respective fields. Literature has two well known contributions: Huxley’s “Brave New World” and Orwell’s “1984”. Each example portrays a future world and imagines what the respective societies would look like. It recently struck me how eerily prescient Orwell’s vision has turned out to be.

The three tenets of Oceania’s IngSoc were 1) War is Peace, 2) Freedom is Slavery, and 3) Ignorance is Power. I’ll leave it to you should a review of 1984 be in order. In the meantime, allow me to press on with application of this triad in today’s “real world”.

War is Peace

Our current war(s) in Iraq and/or Afghanistan have set a record for duration. Our enemy seems to be a border-less, non-national enemy known as terrorism. As such, this war can continue ad infinitum in any country. “We’re fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here.” Sound familiar? The next thing you know, our domestic “peace” is surrounded by perpetual “war” against the terrorists.

Freedom is Slavery

The Patriot Act became law shortly after 9-11 and, with it, many of our civil liberties disappeared. Do you think the name of this legislation was accidental? I don’t. We should not be surprised that patriotism surged after the WTC attack. What better way to get everybody on board? “You’re either with us or against us” is yet another quote with a familiar ring. To relinquish personal freedoms in the name of security is nothing more than re-defining freedom. And, once again, the next thing you know, we are slaves to others who limit the unfettered living of our lives.

Ignorance is Power

The incessant bickering, gridlock, and partisanship recently seen in Washington have given rise to the Tea Party movement. This group eschews the conventional wisdom that maintains government is best left to those knowledgeable in politics. In last fall’s election we saw many races with candidates possessing nary a whit of experience in any hall of power. And some of them won. While their motives might well be as pure as the proverbial driven snow, I fear that their ignorance of how politics (and government) really works will result in further frustration among the electorate. Regardless, we have rewarded seemingly ignorant candidates with the power their particular office possesses.

Kinda scary isn’t it? Are we headed for a “rats in the mask” world? I sure hope not, but can’t help but think that it may have been considered nothing more than a “harsh interrogation technique” in the not-too-distant past. Maybe it’s time for yet another read of Mr. Orwell’s picture of the future. Was he correct in his prophecies, albeit twenty six years late? Or was his view simply a pessimistic treatise where hope exists only in dreams? When you get right down to it, the reality of our future depends upon you, me, and the rest of society to dictate which direction our leaders take us.

Marking Moments

2011-01-02T22:04:00.001-08:00

New Year’s Day has come and gone and now comes the task of returning to normal, everyday life. Many have said that this past year (or perhaps the entire decade) is best forgotten. I’d be hard pressed to argue that major social and economic upheavals have not touched everyone in some way, but throwing an entire period away is akin to tossing out the baby with the bath water.

Think a minute and recall the times of unparalleled joy in the last year. We’ve all had them, you know, whether they be of the personal or professional genre. We’re not very good at marking our moments anymore, though. Is it because our fast-paced life style has us looking at the next square before enjoying the one we’re currently occupying?

I’m not suggesting we wallow in some hazy-focused memory of better times. But if we fail to take the time to mark the moments that define us, we lose perspective for what is yet to come. And don’t confuse me with the eternal optimist, either. Those that know me would propose that I’m something less than Little Mary Sunshine and that’s fine with me. After all, a pessimist is nothing more than an optimist with experience.

Think of your life as a series of chapters, if you will. We each find ourselves at the close of a chapter from time to time. Sometimes this end-of-phase is completely out of our control. Death or down-sizing, to name two. Others, fortunately, can be more easily foreseen and afford the opportunity to soak in the final days of the enterprise. I am entering the last year of my airline aviation career. Knowing that my time is reasonably short, I will mark many moments over the next twelve months. Some will be good and others less-than-pleasant. Regardless, each marked moment will be available for my recollection after my participation has ceased. And what better way to relive the glory while keeping in mind the shortfalls and frustrations that ultimately accompany any endeavor.

Without our marking of important passages, including both good and bad, we can easily slide into thinking that things were better than they actually were.This leads us into second-guessing our decision (if one was involved) to close the chapter. And that takes time away from looking to the future and the possibilities it holds. To simply discard a year (or decade) out of hand is a disservice to the accomplishments throughout the period and to the moments that deserve remembrance. It’s not too late to reflect over the past year (or decade) and sift out those nuggets. And it’s not too soon to resolve marking future moments as they present themselves. It may well be the best resolution of the new year.

To the Dogs

2010-12-26T20:31:00.000-08:00

“To the Dogs” is a phrase usually reserved to describe a continually eroding situation. The economy is going to the dogs as is that abandoned building across the street. Today, however, I use the phrase as a salute to our canine companions.

Of all the domesticated critters, the dog occupies the highest rung on the ladder of loyalty. And for good reason. Beat a dog, make a dog sleep in the cold and wet, expect unreasonable behaviors: it matters not for the tail continues to wag in a never-ending display of unconditional love.

Dogs provide an opportunity for each of us to grow as humans if only we observe and adapt our ways to more closely mirror theirs. Take joy in a walk with a friend. Discover the pleasure of an afternoon nap. Live in the moment. Forget your ego. I’ll grant you that some of these are not possible in a hectic, 24/7 schedule. It’s just as good, perhaps, to keep the ideas in the back of our minds and take advantage of one when the opportunity arises.

Some are now thinking, “Yeah, well you haven’t had the experience that I’ve had with a dog.” Yes, many have been bitten (hopefully no more than once to at least prove the old adage). Think of other scenarios that have turned out badly. I’d say that many of them involve another person. Have you similarly shunned the human race? I doubt it, but cannot argue that some dogs pose a significant obstacle to the kind of relationship I describe. Not impossible, though.

You see, dogs are easier to rehabilitate. One need look no further than those associated with Michael Vick’s dog fighting operation. These were canines trained to kill another of their kind yet all 49 are now in foster homes with other dogs and, in some cases, children. Exceptional therapists? I’d be more inclined to point to an exceptional attitude and underlying desire to please within the patient.

No, dogs are there through thick and thin. Stop feeding them and they’ll sit at your door waiting for a scrap or a pat of some kind. Dogs will meet your gaze and return it with some sort of comprehension and the assurance that they will always remain true. Dogs will interrupt their nap to sit at your side. They revel in your happiness and sit quietly to comfort you in times of sadness.

I’ve had the pleasure of a dog’s company for over half of my life and am presently surrounded by three. Each has a different personality, but they all share the same devotion found lacking in our human world. No hidden agenda or secret goal. A simple, unadulterated admiration. If only we could attain such an altruistic height.

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes and each breed has unique traits. I’d say that is to provide a plethora of choices for would-be owners. Rescue operations even place dogs in a home on a trial basis to ensure a good fit. Not even allergies can eliminate a dog from your life as some breeds are hypoallergenic.

I know, lifestyle and other such considerations are used to rationalize the absence of a canine from any household. There’s always a way. We can even skirt public laws by designating our dogs as “assistance” or “therapy” animals thus allowing access to otherwise off-limits venues. (I’m thinking of getting an assistance coat for one of my guys and telling folks I’m allergic to B.S. Soon afterward I can say, “Oops, he’s alerting me that I’m near B.S. and I must excuse myself!”)

The only thing a dog asks in return for undivided attention and unquestionable loyalty is to be spared from the pain of disease or old age. It seems that few dogs die naturally. They find a way to hang on one more day. I’d like to think it is out of allegiance to their human companions. Regardless, it falls to us all too often to make the final decision and bring a magnificent life to a peaceful end. It is never easy and subsequent passings are no easier, but it is the most noble thing we can do for our beloved canines.

Trust me: a relationship with a good dog cannot be duplicated in any other relationship with any other living thing. And within even the most cantankerous or mistreated canine is a “good dog”. So raise your glass and join me in a toast: To the dogs!

Baby, It's Cold Outside!

2010-12-19T21:40:00.000-08:00

We are fully into the season where those that debunk any and all global warming theories cry, “Al Gore, where are you?” Record low temperatures or massive blizzards bring out the nay-sayers every winter claiming proof positive that global warming is a hoax.

Allow me a moment to digress and refresh the memories of these ill-informed folks: global warming does not necessarily coincide with higher temperatures. Rather, the term is used to illustrate a shift in weather patterns brought on by a higher than normal temperature of our planet. The severity of weather patterns is the hallmark of this condition, not the actual outside temperature. As such, record highs are also recorded, but we don’t hear Al Gore’s name invoked when talking about them, do we?

OK, back to the matter at hand. Nature has thrown much at the world over the past year: earthquakes, blizzards, floods, volcanoes, record setting hot and cold spells, you name it. For an in-depth look at some of these, drop by this Yahoo News link. I realize, by the way, that earthquakes and eruptions are not necessarily tied to the global warming scenario, but they have nevertheless added to the meteorological magnitudes reached over the past twelve months.

I do not claim to have an answer that would solve our global warming concerns save those that have already been proposed. But the fact that many still refuse to accept the premise as viable is beyond me. Most are highly educated people that must be placing a higher priority on politics and cash flow than the general well-being of our planet. This is nothing new, you know. We generally refer to such behavior as “kicking the can down the road”. After all, today’s officials will be long gone before the chickens come home to roost in measurable numbers, so why rock the boat? Let someone else handle it. We’ve seen similar mentalities in recent financial fiascos. Others argue that climate change is nothing new and they’re absolutely correct. I doubt, however, that mankind would take kindly to a new ice age or eternal tropical storms.

So, to you believers out there: don’t let anyone get away with the “where’s AL Gore now that we’re freezing to death?” ploy. It is an argument firmly rooted in ignorance and deserves a rebuttal at the earliest opportunity. Although I doubt a head-in-the-sand denier would be dropping by for a dose of my editorial elixir, just in case one stumbles in: come on...you know that, on some level, society’s way of life is screwing up the ecological balance that we depend upon for life, comfort, and sustainability. At least own up to the fact regardless of any changes you may make in your day to day lifestyle.

They say that admitting the problem is the biggest step to solving it. Let’s all hope that society can look itself in the mirror, accept the fact of a warmer globe, and get to the business of making our carbon footprints a bit smaller. And soon.

Laws R Us

2010-12-12T21:57:00.000-08:00

A good friend and I were chatting the other day and commiserating over how we are pretty much burned out over Christmas well before the holiday comes around. Yuletide shopping displays can be seen shortly after Halloween, radio stations start playing carols the day after Thanksgiving, and some folks leave their Christmas lights up all year round. My friend said, “There oughta be a law!” and we started thinking of other insanities that should be banned: marriage before thirty, for instance, or having children without passing a test, and so forth.

Upon further reflection, though, it occurred to me that the last thing we need is more laws. After all, a law is passed, unintended consequences arise, and another law is passed to correct the deficiencies of the first. And so on and so on. The next thing we know, our legislative acts represent a burdensome and intrusive government. Sound familiar?

There are many facets of our society that require regulation from the feds. Others can be handled by governors or mayors. Many are warranted as they protect innocent members of society from those bent on mayhem. Others as a deterrent for those possessing something less than a full deck engaging in foolish behavior. But a seemingly overwhelming number are created simply because we, the people, want someone else to take care of things. Helmet laws, child safety seat laws, seat belt laws, cell phones while driving laws, no smoking laws. The list is long and sure to grow longer.

Wouldn’t it be better if we, the people, stepped up to the plate and took some responsibility for ourselves, our children, and those around us? On some level, we all realize the benefits from using seat belts or child seats. We accept the fact that second hand smoke is something less than healthy and texting while driving leads to traffic mishaps. Why, then, do we need a law?

I know: the “other guy” who never seems to behave in a manner deemed appropriate. This opinion is the ultimate in selfishness. If the other guy is getting away with something ill-advised, then why shouldn’t I be able to do the same? Yeah, I know it’s unsafe, but he’s doing it. This “why not me” attitude leads to many laws that we could do without if only we took some personal responsibility for our actions.

That’s a tall order these days, though, isn’t it? Who’s got time for that? It’s far easier to pass a law and then rely on our constabularies to deal with the scofflaws while we get back to the serious business of reality TV and the like. Where does it end? Or, better yet, does it ever end?

Will we have a law mandating the beginning of the Christmas season? Or outlawing marriage until an age where hormones don’t trump reason? Or issuing childbirth licenses? Probably not. Or at least I hope not. Rather, I’d hope for a society that ignores Christmas marketing until after the Thanksgiving indigestion has subsided. Or delaying a marriage until all factors have been considered. Or accepting the fact that the desire to have a child is not the same as the means. I think it’s called accountability and we’d go a long way to minimizing new legislation if we just took the time to do the right thing instead of the easy one.

The End of the Stone Age

2010-12-05T20:59:00.000-08:00

Much has been written and spoken about the recent WikiLeaks release of “sensitive” diplomatic material. I have no interest in covering ground that has already been plowed so will offer thoughts that, so far as I know, have gone unexplored.

It seems that the bulk of this latest “leak” consists of personal opinions held by U.S. diplomats regarding other diplomats from other countries around the world. I am shocked that others are shocked. Most of us hold two opinions of folks: the public, politically correct one, and the personal, more earthy one. We generally rely on the latter only when employing the spoken word to avoid the embarrassment of having a written opinion come back to bite us in the butt.

Why would we think that the diplomatic corps and others within the halls of political power would be any different? In fact, I can see why this group would be more prone to dual opinions due to the nature of those they are forced to deal with while wearing a smile. I am mystified, though, as to why supposedly well-educated officials chose to include their real feelings in electronic communiques. The only explanation lies in the hubris that most, if not all, high ranking politicos possess. I’d say that Richard Nixon started the ball rolling by recording the nefarious deeds that occurred during his White House tenure. From tape recorders to open microphones to “off-camera” remarks with the cameras rolling: the examples are abundant.

We are now hearing from administration officials that these leaked papers have seriously damaged any and all diplomatic efforts. Is there any doubt that foreign officials hold similar dual opinions as ours apparently do? The only difference is the recent exposure of our innermost feelings and you can bet that maximum hay will be made by those across the table in future talks. Other than that, though, little has changed.

Throughout all political and corporate dealings similar opinions run under the surface of more civil discussions. No one should be surprised at this. To document these opinions, though, is simply setting the stage for the future requirement of damage control. WikiLeaks promises more information from the corporate boardrooms that conduct and condone skullduggery with even more harmful effects. And who will be surprised at these discoveries?

Rather than focus on the shortsightedness of those putting their personal opinions down on paper, we are asked to look at Army Private Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for crossing the line and behaving in an irresponsible manner. Don’t buy into this. Their actions, I believe, center around feelings of the world spinning out of control under a heavy influence of double talk and obfuscation of reality. I believe their acts represent an attempt to change the course of our foreign relations because more normal avenues have resulted in little or no alterations.

Can we ever hope to eliminate opinions of the heart? No. Can we hope to align them with our public perception of those with whom we are forced to negotiate? Probably not. I would have hoped, though, that our officials would have simply shrugged as if to say, “Yeah, so we think those guys are idiots. They think we’re idiots, too.” Either way, we must come to terms with the fact that we all live in a glass house these days and the time for casting stones has passed. At least to the extent of resisting the urge to document our darker sides on the electronic version of a bathroom wall.

Who's Your Daddy?

2010-11-27T08:40:00.000-08:00

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?

2010-11-20T08:32:00.000-08:00

“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?