Proactivity

It has been said that most of our laws, limitations, ordinances, and the like have been written in blood and for good reason. It seems that blood must be spilled in some way before our representatives react and install provisions to prevent further bloodshed. The key word in the previous sentence is “react” because it infers a process of inaction until such time when exterior forces mandate a change from the status quo.

My question is this: why must these powers-that-be sit idly by until some poor bastard dies before they initiate changes to what could have well been a foreseen problem? Why can’t they be a little more proactive and a little less reactive?

Last week’s mid-air collision over the Hudson River is only the latest example of unending scenarios that may well have been dealt with before tragedy struck. Much is being said that this is the first such mid-air in decades within that airspace, but my question concerns the number of near misses (or, as George Carlin called them: near hits) within the same time span. If that number is high, why delay a change in procedures until someone pays the ultimate price? The key, I’d say, to effective leadership in the public safety arena is to analyze the near disasters rather than the body counts arising from the real things.

We all know of intersections that pose a danger for one or more reasons and we all know that our local leaders are loathe to install stop signs or traffic lights or other mitigating efforts until a given number of accidents and/or fatalities occur. Hell, you and I can do that! We don’t need some high priced bureaucrat to lock the barn door after our horse has run off, do we?

Regardless, this seems to be the current method of protecting society from pitfalls. Now, those that are opposed to such proactive intervention will cry that nothing bad has happened so why screw with it. “It must be working because no one has died”, they claim. At the other end of the spectrum is the Chicken Little sect that sees potential harm in any activity. In between is where all those public servants sit to separate the wheat from the chaff. And therein lies the rub: they opt for no action until they can no longer deny the irrefutable evidence of a problem, generally in the form of casualties. Reactivity, in other words.

These are the very same folks tasked with ensuring the public’s relative safety. Granted, we take a risk getting out of bed every morning and sometimes bad things happen. For these events to be legislated is ridiculous, but no more so than allowing obvious “accidents waiting to happen” to continue unabated until the accident does, indeed, happen. Likewise foolish is the attempt to protect society against itself when products are used in ways unintended by the manufacturer. We can try to make things foolproof, but “damn-foolproof” is elusive, if not impossible.

How many deaths by drunk drivers need to occur before some sort of sobriety/ignition interface is included in automobiles? How many must perish in the transportation system at the hands of fatigued operators before realistic rest provisions are enacted? What is the allowable death rate at intersections infamous for their invitation to collision before adequate safeguards are installed? Whatever the number, rest assured that our friendly representatives would rather choose inaction over defending their actions from accusations of needless meddling. This abstract fear of government intervention is about as much a knee-jerk reaction as after-the-fact zeal to correct long-known deficiencies in many facets of our daily lives. Or, worse yet, seeking a legislative cure for nothing more than an accident within a reasonably safe environment.

There is a line between the two extremes of doing nothing and doing everything and our elected representatives must be proactive in this regard if they are to lay claim to any justification for their lofty positions and salaries. Otherwise, let’s let ‘em all go back to the private sector. As I said earlier: we can be just as efficient reactionaries as they and just think of the money we’ll save.

Time To Go!

If you’ve ever owned a dog, you have probably gone through the experience of putting your canine friend down. Dogs just don’t seem to pass away on their own. Perhaps it is due to the allegiance they exhibit towards their owners. It is not a fun time by any measure, but it is essential in holding up your end of the bargain: a lifetime of unconditional love and, in return, no needless suffering on the part of your pet. I’ve played my part in this play on more than one occasion and have thought that we deal with our pets in a more humane way than our human loved ones. And this sentiment is often echoed when the conversation turns to subjects of this nature. There are six states where assisted suicide is not considered a crime and only Oregon allows for a physician’s involvement. So why is it that we are allowed to treat our dogs with such kindness and not our loved ones of the human persuasion?

For one main reason: they’re dogs! Dogs possess the trait that mankind has yet to conquer: unconditional love. Hell, if it were not for the lack of an opposable thumb, dogs might well rule the world and maybe the world would be a better place for it . Beat a dog or love one, at the end of the day he rests his head in your lap looking for some confirmation of the bond between the two of you. No agenda, no ulterior motive. Pure, simple love and companionship with no expectation. And dogs own nothing, so nothing is gained by their departure from this world. These are the reasons why we can treat our canines better than our clan.

The key word in the above-mentioned legislation allowing someone’s hand in their own passing is “assisted”. You see, unconditional love is rare in people and without it the nobility of decisions of this sort disappears. You know the scenario: “Well, Dad (or Mom or Uncle Harry or whomever) sure as hell wouldn’t want to be in this coma, so let’s put him down.” Now, Dad, et al, can designate a decider in cases of this type should Dad find someone to trust with such a choice, but that should be the extent of it. You see, we can make a good decision for our pet because our pet’s love has been unconditional and nothing is gained by our decision. Human love, though, is much more complicated and includes those nasty agendas, expectations, and ulterior motives.

Sad, but true: given the opportunity, many of us humans would let money and power and greed of other kinds enter into the when’s and how’s of the demise of those naming us in their wills. No such thing as unconditional here, folks. Most of us are worth more dead than alive anyway, and the last thing we need is some inheritor moving up our day of reckoning. And there’s no way to tell the nobles from the ne’er-do-wells until the moment arrives.

I sometimes kid my wife and tell her that I’m afraid to take a nap for fear of her having me declared dead! “That’s right, officer. Get him on that embalming table right now because I know that’s what he’d want!” Yes, it’s all in fun (I hope), but too many times life imitates art.

So do the right thing by your dog and keep him from the painful infirmities of old age or disease. But don’t get too carried away in hoping for similar vehicles on the human side of things. We simply have not evolved to that point yet. My parents once described an ever-increasing hectic world as one “going to the dogs”. In another sense, it may not be a bad idea.

The Big Game

They say that life is a game and it appears that this catch phrase has become an integral part of the way business is conducted, much to the detriment of society. Most of us are worker bees of some sort and occupy a given position within the corporate structure. As new employees, we were driven to do the best for the “customer” and excel so as to progress to higher levels of responsibility and reward. Over time, though, that commitment is often replaced by labyrinthine policies and procedures that must be followed if our climb is to continue unabated. And that, folks, is where the game begins.

Most games involve winning and winning is generally defined as mastering a set of skills to a higher degree than any and all competitors. Nothing in there about quality of service, is there? It’s relatively easy to spot the participants in this game: those who are not directly affected by their decisions. You need look no further than the current financial services industry and it’s ongoing meltdown. Salaries (and bonuses) were predicated on the returns of investments, so the players turned to riskier investments in an attempt to attain greater returns. Hell, it wasn’t their money if they bet badly, and, should they bet well, their paychecks would swell. All sense of the real-world, human ramifications is lost in the game. It’s no game, though, when you’re looking at pink slips, down-sizing, outsourcing, foreclosure, or bankruptcy. No, the consequences are real for those in the trenches, but, then again, they’re not as deeply involved with the game as the higher-ups.

The legal game revolves around convictions or acquittals, not justice. The law enforcement game hinges on arrests and closed cases. Once again, justice takes a back seat. And the political game is all about re-election. Any field of endeavor in which the participants are insulated from the negative fallout culminating from their decisions attracts the game players. From the CEO to the lowly clerk, they are all candidates.

Conversely, those that risk their own comfort (physical or financial) are more immune from such chicanery. Bridge builders, architects, and such aren’t as likely to play the game lest their construction fails at the time they are using it. Transportation workers, from cabbies to truck drivers to airline pilots are inexorably connected to the success of their tasks. No game players, there, I’d say. And small business owners succeed or fail as a direct result of their business practices.

Not everyone falls prey to the siren song of the game. Over time, though, the song becomes harder to ignore because that climb up the corporate ladder seems to depend upon one’s willingness to forsake the heady, idealistic goals of the neophyte. But the ladder is a fantasy. It implies that each step, while higher, is of the same width. In fact, it is a corporate pyramid and the steps get steeper and narrower as one approaches the pinnacle. After all, only one person gets to the top spot so why waste unneeded space? It’s an integral part of the game and this part needs every employee to believe in the idea that they, too, are worthy of that hallowed top spot. How else can the game be prolonged? And what else is there to believe in? Oh, right: the customer.

Can the game be stopped? I certainly hope so, but the cycle must be challenged at the lowest level for it is here where the rules are learned. The powers-that-be aren’t interested in stopping the game, for the game is the key to their success. And they expect their underlings to perpetuate the game by following in kind. Only when the underlings in question opt for the more honorable path that maintains allegiance to honesty, fairness, and the customer will the game grind to a halt. It won’t be a screeching stop. Rather, a slow, yet steady, deceleration in the degradation of our quality of life. It’s well past time to suspend this game in the interest of a brighter future.

Playing Favorites

The country seems to be in a lull between natural disasters. Hurricane season is off to a slow start, spring tornadoes have abated, and wildfires have yet to erupt on a large scale. Rest assured, though, that catastrophes of this type (along with others, such as flooding) will soon find their ways into the lives of many. And when they do you can rest equally assured that media crews will be on scene with the breaking news.

Amid the widespread damage incurred by these events, there is usually at least one residence that escapes unscathed. Surrounded by complete destruction, our fortunate homeowner looks into the camera and says, “God was watching over us”. Wow! This guy must really have connections. I cannot help but wonder why the news crew doesn’t race across to the nearest ravaged home-site, find the unfortunate homeowner, and ask, “What in the hell did you do to deserve this?”. After all, if we take the first statement at face value, doesn’t it logically lead to some heinous behavior on the part of the poor soul who has just lost everything?

Many of us give god the credit when good things happen, but who gets the blame when tragedy befalls? We’ve all seen the athlete point an index finger to the heavens after hitting the game winning home run or scoring the decisive touchdown. No pointing skyward, though, when he strikes out or fumbles on the one yard line. How about extending the middle finger in these cases? It would at least level the theological playing field, wouldn’t it? And, if we give the glory to god for our successes, should he not be privy to the ignominy for our failures?

There is an alternative to these explanations: god is elsewhere and paying attention to far greater enterprises than weather patterns or sporting results and the like. If god made the weather, than those living in the paths of associated phenomena occasionally get their clocks cleaned while neighbors do not. To assume good fortune is due to the goodness of god is just about the most pretentious statement one could make for it simultaneously assumes ill fortune is wrought upon those less deserving.

Karma? Well, this theory also has its roots in religion so I’m not too sure if we’re any better off with. It does, however, address the belief that our good acts will pay off in future dividends while less-than-desirable behavior will be equally punished at some point of time, but it still implies some sort of personal responsibility for events that occur in our lives.

While there are, indeed, outcomes that result from our direct participation, there are an even greater number of events that are random. Tornadoes, hurricanes, or earthquakes can seemingly strike anywhere at any time. They are no different than missing a horrific auto accident or any other tragedy by scant seconds. Let’s chalk it up to the randomness of nature or, perhaps, the right place at the right time (or, if you prefer, the wrong place at the wrong time).

I know some of you are thinking it: shit happens. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. How about letting god off of the hook for either one?

Water, Water Everywhere...

...and not a drop to drink: this past week ABC News ran a story on its World News program about the plight of residents in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Forty of the county’s residents, according to the report, are not afforded the availability of running water. The county’s residents can access high speed internet, cell phones, and the like, but something so rudimentary as running water seems to be a luxury. Ludicrous? Incredible? Well, I have some other, more basic, words in mind: shameful, for instance. Disgraceful also applies. Nonetheless, the story is true. I spoke with Gail Riddick, a Sunflower County realtor, and she confirmed the facts of ABC’s report.

It seems that Mississippi has various water authorities that are charged with providing the infrastructure that provides residents with running water. These authorities appear to be autonomous and, as such, hold sway when it comes to the where’s and when’s. Of course, this infrastructure costs money to establish and money is hard to come by right now, regardless of the specific administration. But times haven’t always been this difficult and the aforementioned residents have been lacking operative spigots for the past six years!

Even the USDA has failed to deliver any substantive assistance. They’ve recommended that the residents find an existing water authority and convince it to extend the existing infrastructure. Well, hell, if they could do that, why would they have bothered with the USDA? I don’t have specific demographics, but feel that its safe to say that the preponderance of the affected residents are black and poor. It would be easy to say that, if it were not for these two identifiers, water would be flowing freely. It would also be somewhat off target.

Despite their race and economic status, these folks are caught up in the swirling storm of unintended consequences. Somewhere, someone decided the creation of water authorities was the best way to ensure water service to all the residents of Mississippi. And maybe (hopefully) that was a good idea. Loose ends are unavoidable, though, and our friends in Sunflower County are the quintessential loose end. Since their numbers are reasonably small and they possess no political or financial clout, it is easy to place their concerns on a very small back burner.

There are, however, champions for such small, disenfranchised groups and I can’t help but wonder where they are. How about the Reverends Jackson (Jesse) and Sharpton (Al)? I know they’re busy with Michael Jackson’s family, but wouldn’t this involvement prove to be more personally rewarding? Did you know that B.B. King was born in Sunflower County? And Archie Manning? Yes, indeed. They are both famous sons and while they may contribute in other ways and for other causes, is there anything more basic than getting a glass of water from the kitchen sink?

I’ve done my share of traveling and would be the first to admit that ignorant, backward, uncaring rednecks enjoy no geographic borders. On the other hand, Mississippians tend to be painted with this broad brush and are sensitive to such a portrayal of their population. Unfortunately, cases such as this serve only to reinforce the negative perception of those within the Magnolia state.

I’m the last one to encourage my readers to forward my pieces, but I’d like to make this an exception and encourage both of you (!) to forward these thoughts on to any and all that might read them. We live in the twenty-first century and to think that something as simple as running water is being withheld from anyone for simple financial reasons is inexcusable. What with stimulus funds floating around out there and other philanthropic grants, I can find no reasons other than lack of political will or grass roots activism to explain why this problem has gone on for so long. Who knows: maybe we can help make a small part of the world a better (and wetter) place.

Skepticism

I recently received an email from a friend regarding the “Stella Awards”. These awards are supposedly named after the lady who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the restaurant. The awards serve as a testament to the frivolous and sometimes warped nature of our legal system. And they have no basis in fact.

What? How can that be? I saw it on the web! When I received the email I was initially (and understandably) irked at how today’s juries tend to reward stupidity. But then my inner-skeptic took over and I did a little investigating through the same format that provided the information to begin with: the internet. Lo and behold, another site dedicated to debunking the urban myth surrounding the latest Stella Award winners. Apparently, there is no record of such people involved in such lawsuits in such courthouses. Go ahead: do a Stella Award search and you’ll see what I mean.

My first idea for this column was going to deal with the aforementioned frivolous awards for frivolous lawsuits. While that may still warrant some discussion, I will leave it for another day so I can address the value of skepticism. A healthy dose of skepticism was once thought to be essential so as to avoid being duped by would-be con artists, shady salesmen, and any others looking for someone who would listen to their spiel. Newspapers and other media sources were generally given the benefit of any doubt because they were all monitored by editors and other proofers who were tasked to ensure reliable reporting.

The internet changed those tenets of reporting, though, because, while the traditional reporter / editor was confirming the story, the web had it posted and was on to other breaking news. No vetting, no editing, no confirming: someone saw something and put it out there for all to see. To keep pace television, radio, and newspapers were forced in publishing or airing with the same speed and keeping their fingers crossed that the stories proved to be true.

And we all know that this has not necessarily been the case. At the same time, we have come to believe what we see on our monitor as gospel absent any of that skepticism that once kept us relatively safe from flim-flammery. So, when we read of the Stella Awards, we get pissed off at ne’er-do-wells getting rich through outrageous settlements. I’d say that the last thing we need is a further lowering of our confidence in today’s legal system.

In today’s world, we may well be in more need of skepticism than ever before. This holds especially true when dealing with the world wide web. The reader / listener needs to weigh the plausibility of an article before deciding that it deserves further consideration, but figuring out how to accomplish that is a tougher nut to crack. Well, let’s start by learning to recognize “key words”.

Marketing departments love key words: “free”, “new and improved”, and the like are employed to garner your attention and to entice you to part with your money. The news industry has adopted key words, too: “shocking”, “unbelievable”, “breaking news”, and other hyperbolic adjectives. (“Unbelievable” has always puzzled me. I’m watching the news because I believe what they report and they tell me that the following story is unbelievable! Well, hell, why then should I believe it, or them?) Don’t get me wrong, I get some of my news from the web, but I limit my bookmarks to established news reporting entities. They may not be perfect, but they offer the best insurance of reliable facts. And, regardless of the source, I'm sensitive to key words that have little to do with facts and more to do with sensationalism.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, you can’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge, and, nowadays, you can’t instantaneously believe what you read or hear. Our skeptic’s eye needs to be exercised if we stand any chance of avoiding knee-jerk reaction to invalid or inaccurate information. One warning: it is a fine line line between heathy skepticism and nay-saying negativism. As a matter of fact, you can find similar definitions for both. In common practice, though, I’d say the former serves us well while the latter squelches any discussion, debate, or progress.

Government Intervention

As I write this and, more than likely, as you read this, the federal government is encroaching even further into our lives. The banking crisis, the automobile industry, national healthcare: you name it and Uncle Sam is intervening. My god, folks, when will we say, “Enough”?

Its time I share something with you, but it must stay between us. To let it out to the general public may well induce panic in the streets. So lean very close to your monitor: with the enactment of the first law of this (or any other) land, government has been intervening in the lives of its citizens. Okay, lean back now and pretend that everything is normal. Careful, for to scream this out at the top of your lungs invites mass hysteria.

Speed limits? Government intervention. Drivers licenses? Government intervention. Minimum drinking age? Government intervention. Every law ever written creates limits where there were none and those limits represent some sort of intervention into our previously unfettered lives. Why is it that, all of a sudden, we must steel ourselves from this intruder?

Part of the reason lies in the tried and true theory of fear mongering in the absence of rational argument. Right-leaning pundits and politicians have used this method of debate in the past with reasonable success. Other entities concerned with preserving the status quo use similar tactics to persuade us to prefer the devil we know over the devil we don’t. Another part lies in our resistance to government’s unnecessary intrusion into our pursuit of happiness. This part, at least, is a good thing because, without it, those in power would be even more inclined to exercise it.

Let’s think of society as the child and government as the parent. (Society includes the business world, too.) Now, as children grow and mature the parents provide them more latitude so long as their behavior is commensurate with expectations. Should they stray, however, mom and dad are quick to clamp down on their “freedoms” until they return to a more accepted degree of compliance.

Government’s role of regulating and/or monitoring has been minimized to the point where it is comparable to the folks leaving town for a month and trusting the kids to take care of themselves. And we all know, without actually doing it, that such a scenario, parentally speaking, is probably less than a great idea.

The “financial services” industry (don’t you love that name) has been on a bender for a good while. Every poke and prod at the limit of their authority was met with no resistance which only encouraged new pokes and prods. Money was rolling in and everybody was happy so why rock the boat? Maintaining the nautical theme, that ship has sailed. The economy is on the rocks and many retirement plans have disappeared down the drain. For the feds to step in so as to prevent further damage makes perfect sense.

Using our money for bailouts in the banking and automotive sectors is unpalatable on many fronts, but the collateral damage from failures of such grand scale would be far worse, I’d think. Even now, the ripples are touching nearly every other sector of our economy. Let’s consider those bailed out as kids who are in desperate need of structure. That structure now exists in the form of executive compensation and the monitoring of other front office decisions so long as public money is included in the corporate coffers.

The nationalized health care debate is glowing white hot as Congress attempts to get its arms around this problem that, in one way or another, costs us all. Lets consider the healthcare industry a recalcitrant tyke who refuses to modify any behavior until the threat of even greater discomfort looms. The current administration seems serious about providing some degree of health care for most, if not all, citizens. Suddenly, providers, hospitals, doctors, and the like want a seat at the table. Why the change?

It could be because there is now a serious threat to the status quo and the only way to keep one’s ox from being gored is to get involved in what will be the new status quo. Kind of takes concern for the patient out of the mix, doesn’t it? Regardless, the parental threat causes a desired reaction from the brat.

While none of us may support unwarranted intrusions into our daily lives, such forays cannot be considered novel by any standard. The degree of intervention should be proportional to the unruliness of society and I think we can agree that the kids have had the run of the house for so long that major intervention is required. So stop the ballyhooing of socialist state or anti-capitalism or nationalization. Our system is out of whack and needs some tweaking. Something the government is uniquely positioned to effect.