Q's (No A's)

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

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

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

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

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

How much money is enough?

What is an acceptable unemployment rate?

What is a fair tax?

How do we win the war on drugs?

Should public service (politics) be a career?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Should there be a specified campaign season?

Should there be a specified Christmas season?

Is the Post Office becoming obsolete?

Are e-cards as personal as traditional ones?

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

Are children more undisciplined or are parents more permissive?

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

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

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

Does the TSA make air travel safer?

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

Should strikes be outlawed?

Which is more important: convenience or accomplishment?

Who should provide seed money for new, unproven technologies?

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

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

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

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

Losing the Gray

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I forwarded it to you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(And no, I didn’t forward it.)

Commitment

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?

Shortcuts

Humans are lazy, in case you haven’t noticed. We will line up to buy the latest labor-saving device despite knowing nothing about what it does or if we need it. If it’s easier or quicker, we’re interested. These doodads all fall under the heading of “shortcut” and we love shortcuts. More than likely, they started out as a geographic means to simply shorten the distance from A to B. I’m only guessing because I wasn’t around when they became popular, but I can’t help but think that someone was looking for a way to shave a few minutes off of the trek from the hunting ground to the tepee.

Like most everything else, the shortcut has taken on an existence of its own, much to the detriment of society. The lottery? A shortcut to riches. The microwave? A shortcut to dinner. The Tivo or DVR? Shortcuts to our favorite programs absent those pesky commercials. Even computers have shortcuts to save the user a nano-second or two in opening a program. Our patience has been overwhelmed by searching for that elusive shortcut needed at a particular moment for a particular purpose. Ironically, when we find our shortcut, we immediately look to find a shortcut to the shortcut!

This never-ending quest has found itself into the political arena, too. As election day approaches, some candidates are painting their campaigns as a way to end our current economic malaise and immediately turn a corner to prosperity. A shortcut, in other words. I hate to break it to you, but no matter who wins what race, our near-term future is bound to be full of stagnation or, at best, a snail’s pace of progress. Why?

Have you ever eaten too much of a given food and then suffered the effects? You know: bloating, burping, hurling, etc. Eventually the “runs” (or “trots” if you prefer) show up to complete the entire miserable experience. No step can be omitted: it is a process that must run its course before we feel any better and there is no way to speed up the recovery. Well, think of our economy having over-indulged on housing. We are maybe half-way through that entire miserable experience and no shortcut exists that will save us from what is yet to come.

You may think I am asking you to vote in a certain manner that might suggest “staying the course”. Not true. I am saying, though, that there is no magic bullet, no shortcut that will allow us to escape the future pangs as our economy recovers. Less stimulus...more stimulus...lower taxes...higher taxes? Beats me as to what formula may at least minimize the discomfort. Regardless, we’re in this to the end and the end is still a ways off.

I’m no more thrilled by this as you. But it is what it is. Who knows: maybe our thirst for shortcuts will be slaked for a time. Probably not, though. After all, we’re a lazy species.

Bigger...but Better?

Last Tuesday evening found me in New York City. Being a life-long Yankees fan, I thought it a great opportunity to take in a game and see the new, improved Yankee Stadium. I’ll return to touch this base, but let’s first look at the larger picture.

There seems to be an unwritten rule that dictates recurring events are not desirable without yearly increases in size, spectacularity, or participation. It doesn’t matter whether we’re talking about the local county fair or the Super Bowl: if this year’s ain’t bigger than last year’s, it ain’t better. ABC News reported last week that Brockton, MA cancelled it’s annual Memorial Day Parade for lack of funds. The next day they followed up with a story that reported the town had a change of heart (in response to an overwhelming cry of dismay) and would, indeed, proceed with the parade, albeit in a scaled-down version. The”scaling down” apparently revolved around the decision to forego a paid, big-time marching band and allow the local high school band to enjoy top billing.

Why would any town in America eschew local participants in favor of out of town, paid performers? Bigger and better, that’s why. Small town celebrations, regardless of the holiday or reason, are attractive because they care not about bigger and better. They concentrate on community and consistency. The crowds grow bigger over time due to that very fact. Specific acts may come and go, but the overall theme survives and that is a good thing.

How about Christmas? Now here is a great holiday, regardless of your religious affiliation. Gifts, food, drink, flashing lights: it’s got something for everyone. When I was a kid we’d wait not for Thanksgiving, but for the day after Thanksgiving because that’s when the Christmas season began. Literally overnight, the stores would pull out their Christmas displays and the buying spree would begin on the fourth Friday of November. The street decorations would go up earlier, of course, but nothing was turned on until the appropriate evening following the appropriate day. This was a hectic and happy period. Hectic because we had roughly five weeks to get all of our shopping and cooking done and happy because we knew that, by the end of that five weeks, we’d be more than ready to start our New Year’s diets and such while putting away the Christmas decorations for another eleven months.

Not any more, folks. The day after this year’s Christmas represents the first day of shopping for next year’s Christmas! Is it any wonder that we’re way beyond burned out by the time December 25th rolls around? Most of us are saying, “Jesus Christ, can I rest now?” with no pun intended. We’re beat, broke, and bent on avoiding the same maelstrom next year, but the powers that be conspire to defeat us before we’re out of the starting gate. Marketers start up their after-holiday sales pitches at one minute past midnight on December 26th and it’s all downhill from there.

Presidential politics is falling into the same trap by expanding the primary process to a point where it could well take four years to conduct a campaign that once involved only several months. In the 2008 election, two states (Florida and Michigan) were so bent on being the first on their block with a primary that they violated party guidelines, timing-wise, and created a hullabaloo over the status of their delegates. Without the appropriate respite between the slinging of barbs, accusations, and mud is there any wonder why voters shun the polls when election day finally rolls around?

No, “bigger and better” or “new and improved” are nothing more than marketing schemes aimed at roping in more money while delivering less. To buy into this ever-increasing philosophy invites eventual disappointment and the longing for simpler times. The one exception may involve the “enhancement” of specific parts of the male and female anatomy and I’d say that discussion is better left for another venue.

So let’s return for a moment to Yankee Stadium: it is a glorious place with state of the art electronics, more comfortable seating, and almost unlimited choices of sustenance and libation. My seat in the second deck (just outside first base) was $95. A burger, fries, and a beer was $25. New and improved doesn’t come cheap, you know. They kept the dimensions of the old stadium and tried to duplicate the theme, succeeding to a large degree. It is a smaller, but more comfortable stadium and includes, of course, luxury boxes absent from it’s predecessor. But is it better? That is a relative term to be decided upon by the individual. It is different and that is not necessarily a bad thing. Those of us that have lived long enough to see the comings and goings of hallowed locations are the only ones who notice the change. Younger eyes and minds will have to wait their turn to bid adieu to old standards while welcoming the new, bigger, and (hopefully) better.