Priorities

In perusing yesterday’s New York Times, I was struck by the number of times I thought to myself, “What are they trying to accomplish here?” It’s important to have priorities, but sometimes agendas collide and, when they do, the outcome is something less than noble. For instance:

A German diocese is under the bright lights for the mishandling of abuse while the current Pope was its archbishop. It seems that a priest was accused of molestation, entered therapy, and thereafter returned to his prior pastoral position. While Benedict admits to approving the therapy, a subordinate is taking full responsibility for the reassignment. I can’t help but wonder if someone is falling on his sword to protect higher-ups. This would be far from the first instance of such behavior, but the priority of protection seems misplaced with regard to truth and accountability.

The FCC is proposing a renewed commitment to providing high speed internet access to all areas of the country. There can be little argument that technology and the way we communicate is going in that direction and there can be little argument that we would all gain from the availability of DSL and the like. Nevertheless, companies entrenched in the business of providing computer, cable, television and telephone services are resisting this initiative. Why would they do such a thing? Perhaps they would be forced to upgrade their offerings or relax their grip on near-monopolistic enterprises. Money, in other words. (Or perhaps profits would be more appropriate.) It’s not that they’d make nothing, but only that they’d make less. With the overall gains that individuals and communities would realize, though, it seems that, once again, the priorities are bass-ackwards.

For the first time, South Africa (and Africa, in general) will host World Cup Soccer matches in June. Four games will be played in a new $137 million stadium near Nelspruit that is surrounded by some of the most deprived areas in the world. Mud houses and dirt roads are the norm. Once again, there is nothing new about splendid venues erected amid squalor, but yet again that nasty question about priorities rears up.

The Tea Party, it seems, is steering clear of divisive social issues such as gay marriage and abortion rights. Is it because these issues have no place in politics or because they’d just as soon get as many in their tent before turning to a more strident agenda? Bait and switch, in other words. And in a conservative-related story, the Texas Board of Education seemed to re-write history in establishing new text book guidelines that glorify Ronald Reagan while minimizing Thomas Jefferson. Historically, the Board held sway over the curricula in other states simply by virtue of the number of books Texas ordered. Now, with digital printing, one can only hope such partisanship can be kept within a state boundary. And in both cases, objectivity or honesty takes a lower priority to enrollment and the furthering of specific agendas.

Google seems to be at odds with China over censorship. The Chinese government seems bent on filtering the information available to its citizenry and Google, of course, specializes in all things informative. A no-brainer, right? Tell China to pound sand, pull out of the country, and trust in the creativity of the Chinese common-folk to establish avenues of unfettered access. Ouch! There’s that profit thing again. Oh well, what’s a little loss of freedom when compared to a boatload of yuan?

And finally, a soldier awarded the Silver Star for his meritorious actions during the battle of Wanat, Afghanistan is now subject to a reprimand for poor preparation in the days preceding the battle. WTF? Captain Matthew Meyer is the poor soul caught in this nightmare and, unlike the Catholic official taking one for the Pope, he is being scapegoated, pure and simple. Both scenarios obfuscate accountability, justice, and honor, but one is voluntary while the other is sacrificed in the name of expediency. While the volunteer may be seen as more “honorable”, I’d say we’re picking fly poop out of pepper because neither brings us closer to a responsible conclusion while producing innocent roadkill.

Pragmatism certainly seems to take a higher priority than more altruistic aims, doesn’t it? So should we all shrug and climb on board the “if I don’t do it, someone else will” train? I should hope not. If we lose our priorities and place right and wrong below more immediate and profitable agendas we serve only to hasten our descent into a world where “I” and “mine” are forever superior to “you”, “yours”, or “ours”.

March Madness

If only the upcoming NCAA basketball tournament was the most important issue of the day. Alas, the madness I refer to is a smattering of events that reflect, in various ways, the state of our society.

Recently, a captive Orca whale at Sea World killed an experienced trainer. Yes, I know that it occurred in February, but the discussion continues into March. And the discussion centers on the wisdom of using wild beasts to entertain the masses. On one side, were it not for zoos and other wildlife centers, our familiarity with critters would be minimal. So what? Well, without that familiarity, we don’t put a face on the beasts and their futures are far less assured. We learn of their value and role within the ecosystem. On the other side, though, do we need to see them flying through the air with humans on their back? Or on stage with two guys in Vegas? Or in one of three rings under the Big Top? There is a fine line between education and exploitation, profit and progress. One would think that we could put the welfare of all involved ahead of corporate coffers. Apparently, we have not come to that point yet. In the meantime, though, it is madness to be shocked when a captive turns on the captor. Nothing personal...simply the nature of the beast.

This past week, madness arose at the Pentagon where a man opened fire and wounded two police officers. John Bedell appeared to be a normal, well-dressed individual until he brandished his weapon and opened fire. He died from his wounds. Reports suggest he was suffering from a variety of mental disorders. Regardless, no one can refute the anti-Washington sentiment flowing freely through today’s conversation. Such language serves to inflame already simmering resentments and may sometime serve as the catalyst for those who are familiar with Mr. Bedell’s demons. His “madness” may have been multi-faceted, but today’s atmosphere of distrust and emotional rhetoric causes some to make the leap from rational to rabid. Again, to be surprised at such leaps is, in itself, madness.

Yet another form of madness appeared in the shape of harmless interaction between a father and his children. The father in question is an air traffic controller in the tower of New York’s Kennedy International Airport. He allowed his children to make routine transmissions to departing aircraft. He did not leave them unsupervised and more than likely rehearsed their lines well in advance. Nevertheless, he is now suspended (as is his supervisor) for this breach of protocol. Gadzooks! A child on the radio? This is tantamount to your Doctor’s child asking you to say “Ahhhh” as Dad examines your mouth. Or your attorney’s child objecting when prodded by Pop. Simple exclamations that have nothing to do with the overall efficiency or outcome of the proceedings. The FAA seems intent upon making an example of this controller. Why? They have been something less than successful in upgrading the equipment used by their controllers or the pay and benefits of the controller force. They do not seem as intent on attracting new controllers in the numbers required to replace an aging workforce or addressing the associated fatigue and shortage of manpower. Maybe this “bring your child to work” brouhaha is something they feel up to and they hope you don’t notice the elephants in the room while they swat at the mosquitoes. Madness? With a capital M!

Allow me to paraphrase “Man of LaMancha” when Don Quixote defines the greatest degree of madness as “seeing things as they are and not as they should be.” Perhaps the best thing to do is immerse ourselves in the roundball tourney if, for no other reason, to find some semblance of sanity. It sure seems to be in short supply as of late. And whether you’re a college hoops fan or not: take heart for seeing things as they should be.

One Helluva Bad Idea

Well, California's done it again: last week the Assembly voted to approve “No Cussing Week”. I can only hope that other state legislatures have enacted similar resolutions if for no other reason than commiseration. It seems that a teen-aged boy came up with the idea of refraining from “cussing” for a week. When a cuss word was uttered, a fee was paid to the Cuss Jar and, at the end of the week, all proceeds went to charity. This idea is so wrong on so many fronts that I just had to set aside more trivial matters and set my sights on this as the issue of the week.

First of all, please define cussing. Is it simply the taking of the lord’s name in vane (God#%&it)? Or does it include more common expletives (s&*t, hell, damn, dammit, f@$k, and so on)? We need some specific guidelines here if we are to abide by the law of the land.

And if the money obtained from cussing goes to charity and charity is a worthy cause, shouldn’t we then encourage cussing for a week? Look at the oodles of money we could collect! Instead, we discourage cussing and the collection jar diminishes accordingly. Is civil language trumping the needy? I sure as hell hope not!

And what about the legislators that have been caught up in this? I cannot think of one state or locality with no business of a higher priority on its plate, can you? Is this a desperate demonstration of bipartisanship? An example of how well we can get along (so long as it doesn’t involve anything of import)? I’d be ashamed to even entertain such a motion when urgent business awaits.

And finally, we get to today’s language itself. Granted, over the years once-thought-of expletives have crept into our vernacular. And, in some cases, they have overwhelmed what was once-thought-of as civil discourse. But the majority of folks, I’d say, recognize situations where letting it all hang out is inappropriate. Do you really believe that electronic media personalities never swear? Or lawyers or doctors? (I’ll omit pilots because everyone knows that we sure as hell do.) Yup, you can bet your gosh-darned boots they can swear up a blue streak when called upon. Well, most, anyway. My point lies in the fact that removing the more profane from our lexicon also removes the spice from conversation. There are times to use it and times to resist. To suggest that abstinence from expletives makes us a better society is ludicrous and creates nothing but a façade.

Some have commented on the profanity in my book. I believe that the words chosen were germane and not gratuitous. A book is not available to the public at large in the same sense as this weekly offering. That is why you see little or no “cussing” on this site. It is not because those phrases might not apply. Choosing the right time and place to either orate with grace or proselytize from the gutter is the thing. To attempt to remove such terms is akin to taking all the flavor from our foods: we’d be left with a pretty bland conversation.

The "Other" Deficit

It’s hard to find a newspaper or newscast that doesn’t include some reference to the deficit. And we all recognize the term to specifically refer to our present financial situation. There is another deficit running through our country and I’d say the failure to address it holds far more dire consequences.

The “other” deficit is one of faith in the various systems and organizations created to provide an orderly resolution to the problems we face everyday. The latest example of this faith deficit was last week’s air raid on an IRS building in Austin, TX. The seemingly mild-mannered pilot flew his small aircraft into a particular building for a particular reason. He is being painted as a lone crazy. While I agree that he was acting alone, I believe his “craziness” would be better described as an utter loss of faith in a system supposed to hear grievances and settle disputes fairly. I believe this guy lost all hope and, in its place, became desperate with nothing to lose and nothing of promise in his future.

We’’ll return to this particular event in a moment, but let’s first take a look at some specific social deficits:

1. The corporate morality deficit: With ever burgeoning executive pay and a wider gap between those that have and have not, American businesses have lost their moral compass (conscience, if you prefer). No one expects the demise of the profit motive but too few are gaining on the backs of the too many.
2. The respect deficit: From the workplace to the family room, respect is so scarce that, if it were an animal, it would be an endangered species. Figures that once enjoyed respect due to their position are ridiculed and ignored. Parents find an abyss of disdain as they attempt to instill a sense of responsibility and accountability in their children.
3. The recognition deficit: It seems that the ability to recognize other perspectives and individuals as possessing any type of validity is rapidly disappearing. We ignore the homeless and we disregard opinions that run counter to our set of beliefs. “I” and “we” have usurped “you” to the point where compromise in society, business, or politics borders on the impossible.

As this societal, corporate, and political deficit worsens, folks lose hope. They lose faith in the future and the ability to believe that the “system” will work for them. They are isolated and frustrated with nowhere to turn. So they become desperate and the illogical quickly becomes reasonable: if I’m going down, I’m going to take someone with me who’s responsible for my plight.

Such is the case with the Texan pilot and the IRS, I’d say. Or the teacher denied tenure or the worker bee passed over for promotion. Without faith in the system and hope for a better result, violence should not be a surprising end game. What is to be done?

An excellent question, but to answer it we must first acknowledge the problem. And therein lies the rub: no one within the maze of political or social departments can afford to admit that these acts of violence are something more than random, lone-wolf events. To do so would also acknowledge the inability to carry out their mandates of fairness, progress, and the reasonable settlement of disputes. Don’t expect anyone to stand up anywhere and say that they’re dong a lousy job. Keep in mind that even the lowest peon on any organizational chart is trying to keep that paycheck coming in. No, there’ll be no mea culpa from our powers-that-be and that only ensures similar examples of this “other” deficit will continue.

We are all beset with an endless list of demands and bad news. To throw our hands up in surrender solves nothing. Let us try to find that one ray of sun peeking out amongst the storm clouds. It may be just a thread, but it offers us something to grasp as we try to find that elusive better day. I may well be preaching to the choir, but it falls upon us choristers to try and keep our brethren from falling prey to this “other”, more dangerous deficiency.

Transparency and Risk

These two words tend to spring up in most stories dealing with our current financial maelstrom. Let’s start with transparency: I get the feeling that it refers to the ability to see who’s doing what to whom and for what reason. Or something close to that, anyway. The problem lies in the fact that transparency becomes important only when bad things happen. Otherwise, no one seems to care about the who’s and the why’s.

Every business transaction holds some sort of agenda that must remain hidden to achieve a maximum gain. Asking prices are inflated so the seller can accept a lower price without sacrificing the desirable profit margin. And the buyer’s agenda of getting something for less is also satisfied. It would be difficult to conduct business in any other way.

Poker players understand this concept perhaps better than anyone. The cards are held close to the vest for a reason, you know. To play a poker hand with all of the cards face up offers the greatest degree of transparency at the expense of any potential gain. No, we don’t want transparency so much as we want fairness, but neither are overabundant in today’s world of commerce. We want the Ken Lay’s of the world to tell us when our Enron stock is about to tank instead of delaying the inevitable collapse. The deceit creates the call for transparency and only to provide an explanation for why things went so terribly awry.

Mortgage brokers knew the real estate bubble would someday burst, but continued to package financial vehicles to keep it going as long as possible. Now that many are upside down in their homes, the hue and cry for “transparency” in lending has increased exponentially. Do you expect your banker or broker to tell you the worst case scenario instead of the best? Sorry, that’s just not how one closes a deal. The worst case scenario depends upon the buyer crunching the numbers to decide whether the worst case is survivable. Many did not do the math and are now dealing with the consequences.

Risk, in a way, goes hand in hand with transparency as both are found in the commercial arena in the buying and selling of products. The same financial meltdown that sparked the cry for transparency has also created a demand for less risk. If you want to keep your money safe, put it in your mattress. Or maybe an FDIC insured bank. (What with interest rates so low, one may not be that much more advantageous that the other.) The only other choice is to invest it in other things, be they real estate or mutual funds, or stocks and the like. And each one has an associated level of risk. Once again, the choice lies with the buyer. Don’t expect the seller to tell you that you’re making a mistake. That kind of honesty (or transparency, if you wish) runs counter to the art of selling.

Ironically, no one seems to care about risk or transparency when times are good. Most folks didn’t want to know how Bernie Madoff was providing consistently high returns on investment. Only when his Ponzi scheme was revealed did they scream for more information. Many made out quite well in the real estate market and other investments, but now that the tide has turned, someone else must be held accountable. Someone should have told us to get out of that fund or that market.

Alas, we have only ourselves to blame for failing to realize that all gain involves risk and what goes up...well, you know the rest. And with integrity in business there is no need for transparency. No commercial venture is risk-free: all opportunities have downsides and the buyer must rely on counsel from others than those doing the selling.

The Golden Age of Schizophrenia

The chances are slim that a schizophrenic would be reading these words. On second thought, maybe not. Nevertheless, today’s schizophrenics find themselves in a much more accepting world than ever before. When I was a kid, my folks warned me about people that talked to themselves. This behavior was a warning and any smart kid was well advised to cross the street or use any other avenue of escape so as to avoid drawing nearer to anyone exhibiting what was then though of as aberrant behavior. And, being a smart kid, I was ready for such an occurrence. I can’t tell you for certain that the opportunity to put my preparation into practice ever presented itself, but I was ready, by god, and I’m sure that many others employed such escapes. After all, schizophrenia and other related mental illnesses are nothing new.

What is so different about today’s world? Technology. Cell phones and bluetooth are now the norm and this combination has created a society where people are seemingly talking to themselves nearly nonstop. On the streets, in cars, while shopping: it’s hard to find a venue where someone isn’t using a small, hidden device to tele-communicate via another small hidden device. And, since the devices are somewhat hidden, the observer is hard pressed to differentiate between now-normal behavior and psychoses. (Yes, I know that the line is blurring in more ways than this singular one.)

Regardless, schizophrenics and others suffering from paranoia can now talk to the voices in their heads and blend in perfectly with their fellow pedestrians, diners, shoppers, or what-have-you. Hence, their Golden Age. No more ostricization or avoidance. Rather, a look of awe and curiosity as one tries to figure out just where the headset and cell phone are located. Even Tourette Syndrome sufferers can feel more comfortable in social situations. The only line any of these folks needs in their repertoire is, “I’ve gotta go...I’ll get back to you” and they’re set. At the first sideways glance or suspicious look they need only to say it loud and clear. Now all seems normal. “Hey, it’s just a new cell phone gizmo. Nothing to worry about.”

Is mental illness something to be made light of? Not necessarily, but these symptoms are common and have historically resulted in negative reactions. My point is more to the evolution of the rest of society: the “more normal”, if you will. That may be an overgenerous description, though. While those with mental disorders have little or nothing available to mitigate their behavior, the “more normals” can elect to have their private conversations privately rather than conducting them among others with little or no interest in being subjected to such boorish behavior. Who’s to say which is more aberrant?

Pitching In

Across the country there are countless associations, organizations, and clubs comprised of members who supposedly support the goals of the given group. Some of these organizations are local affiliates of a national association, but nevertheless strive to satisfy a given objective within their neighborhood. Some are civic, some professional, and some focus on leisure activities, but all are geared toward specific areas of interest. Each, despite differences, has a common thread shared with all others: the dependence upon the membership to move forward.

Why is it, then, that any given group relies upon a minority to do the majority of the work required to accomplish anything? I’d wager that most of you belong to some type of group described above. Do you pay your dues and nothing more? Or do you pay your dues and pitch in to help from time to time? No heroics, necessarily, but every leader needs minions to carry out a mission. Are you ready to step forward and be the minion of the day?

Many are not and I’m damned to understand why they belong to the group in the first place. Perhaps they believe their mere presence provides a positive addition to the organization. And others may have no life outside of the club and maintain a membership for some level of socialization. The former is presumptuous; the latter pathetic.

The needs of any group are simple: ideas from an engaged membership and the man-power to put those ideas into action. Anyone else is dead weight (except for the dues, of course) and serve to limit any hopes of high morale and accomplishment. Everyone knows this, but every group seemingly remains mired in the “minority doing the majority” mentality.

And there is no good way out of this, either. What do you do? Throw someone out because of their lack of participation? Pretty soon, the association no longer exists, does it? There may be a way to prod our non-producers, though. My wife belongs to a horsemen’s group that has monthly meetings and regular trail rides along with special functions throughout the year. Each of these events (save the meetings) is awarded a point value and each member that participates is awarded appropriately. At the end of the year, the top ten point earners are recognized and rewarded with a token gift for their participation. I’ll tell you what: this group is something to envy when it comes to esprit de corps and promoting their agenda.

Maybe this formula might be a good way to incentivize any membership into doing more for the good of the group. True, we’re employing bribery to a point, but the end is still a noble one that may well justify the means. I’m not sure, but I can tell you that, in the case of the horsemen at least, you couldn’t ask for a more engaged membership.

For those of you (us) that join up and join in, good for you (us). And for the rest of you: give me an idea as to why in the world you’re here, sitting beside me with your mouth shut and your hand in your lap. Surely you have something better to occupy your time or sense of duty. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in making this group a better place to be.

Some may think my position is a bit harsh. After all, it’s the 21st century and we’re all busy and on and on and on. While I can’t argue that today’s schedules are hectic, I can argue that the tried and true adage of “anything worth doing is worth doing well” still applies, regardless of the date.