Who Are You?

There are few of us that have not been asked for proper identification before purchasing liquor or cigarettes. Most have been carded before entering night clubs or perhaps even R-rated movies. Are we guilty of trying to get something for nothing? Not necessarily. The request is merely a fact of operating within a society of laws and standards. We do not feel as though we’ve been profiled or are victims of discrimination. So why is Arizona’s new immigration law creating such a shit storm?

First of all, there can be little argument that the state experiences a high rate of illegal immigrants if for no other reason than its proximity to Mexico. With this new legislation, police can inquire as to the status of anyone (hispanic, or otherwise) who creates a suspicion regarding citizenship. Kind of like the aforementioned requests for ID. Perhaps the inability to speak English would be a good suspicion-arouser. Regardless, this legislation creates a mechanism to identify and deal with those that are in this country illegally.

Why is there such fear among Arizona’s hispanic population? I’d say it’s because many of them have something to fear because of their immigration status. This is a country based on laws and the primary law concerns legal entry. Send your kids to Harvard and tell them to sneak into English 101, secure in the knowledge that, if caught, they’ll be able to stay. Ridiculous? You bet it is, but the same mentality currently exists with regard to illegal immigration. Don’t send troops into the streets in a major sweeping action, but if these folks are found through other legitimate means they need to go home or pay some sort of restitution for their crime.

No, this law will not encourage profiling any further than it already exists. And yes, it does exist because any police officer that is lousy at analyzing a situation absent an abundance of facts will soon be off the force, one way or the other (and that’s all profiling is). It simply provides a tool that the cops can use to enforce long standing immigration statutes. And that, folks, is a good thing.

Other areas of the country deal with the same problems and some do not involve hispanics. There are many folks in this country illegally and they’re from many places. Granted, Mexico is prevalent due to its proximity, but that does not render the attempt to rein in a porous border as moot. We are a nation of laws and society expects its citizenry to abide by those laws. Arizona is merely attempting to do that by enacting this most recent legislation. To somehow claim it exceeds any established boundary of civility is laughable in the face of daily requests for identification in other facets of what is considered to be normal activity.

Lastly, should you be one of those illegal immigrants we’re talking about, don’t for one minute talk to me about your constitutional rights. Those rights flow to those that choose the legal, albeit more arduous, path of attaining a legal entry into this country.

Outsiders

The political landscape is rife with candidates representing themselves as “outsiders”. This shouldn’t be surprising in light of the current distrust of those on the inside of the beltway in D.C. or a particular state capitol. Nevertheless, can we expect an outsider to be an effective legislator regardless of position? I’d say no and I’ll share my reasoning.

Some outsiders come from the corporate world where they enjoyed various levels of success. A case in point is Meg Whitman, a California GOP candidate vying for the party’s nomination for Governor. Ms Whitman gained fame while running EBay and is now pouring a good bit of her personal fortune into her election bid. The cornerstone of her campaign lies in the rationale that the state should be run as a company in which action outranks talk. Needless to say, the reaction is positive as frustration grows with legislative infighting and partisanship. A closer look, though, reveals a fatal flaw in such reasoning: Meg could take a “my way or the highway” approach to her company, but in Sacramento she will be forced to deal with a legislature, where the true power lies. Without a cooperative atmosphere, little progress will be made. Ross Perot would have faced the same problems had he been elected to the Presidency. Such CEO mentality might work in an authoritarian government, but usually meets its Waterloo in any kind of representative framework.

Charismatic candidates have been thwarted by the same dilemma. Jesse Ventura as the Governor of Minnesota and California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger both enjoyed celebrity status but failed to align the all-so-valuable legislators to advance their agendas. The idea that electing a matinee idol and expecting everyone involved with the political process to fall blindly into lockstep is naive at the very least.

Yes, the electorate votes for change by sending an individual to the State House or the White House or even Congress, but the change is hard to come by for a simple reason: no one is a political island. A Governor or President must create alliances within their respective legislatures to introduce laws and ultimately enact them. Without this alliance, gridlock ensues. And the “insiders” of those legislative bodies are loathe to entertain any scintilla of success for their Chief Executive. To do so creates the impression that career politicians are no longer necessary to do the will of the people. You can do it...or I can, too. This spells a boatload of trouble for anyone striving to maintain their place at the feed trough. So, while no progress is a bad thing for the constituents, it represents a return to politics as usual come the next election cycle. Mr. Ventura served but one term and Arnold is termed-out. Had he been able to run again, I doubt if he would have won the GOP nomination, let alone the election. Congressional outsiders are ostracized by their senior colleagues until they come around to the insider way of thinking. No committee posts or other opportunities to participate in the process. Most who resist opt out of seeking re-election or lose their bid for a return to office.

It is rare to find a candidate that is truly an outsider. Perhaps John F. Kennedy may have well been the latest one in the White House and that was largely due to his private wealth that enabled him to avoid the usual obligations to powerful interests. (Could it be that this fact had something to do with his untimely demise?) Regardless, the idea that simply seating an outsider within a political process that depends upon debate, alliance, and compromise generally fails to produce the desired results.

This has driven many voters from the process as they increasingly believe that their input is meaningless. True, human nature being what it is, politicians can be expected to act like everyone else when it comes to hanging on to one’s job. That alone, though, should not dissuade us from voting for “outsiders” as they represent a break from the past and the status quo. Their success, though, is another matter altogether, and we should not be surprised should they fall victim to concerted efforts undermining their agenda.

Retirement

Some of us are fortunate in working for an enterprise over a lengthy period of time and ultimately arriving at a retirement date. This date is anxiously awaited as it draws nearer to the present day and is generally met with accolades, trinkets, and recollection. Why?

Is it because those on whose behalf we toiled are finally recognizing our efforts over the years? Doubtful, since most benefits gained over those same years were not provided without a fight. Is it because our co-workers have secretly admired us and genuinely care for our well-being? Equally doubtful, since our departure opens up a new opportunity for one of them. No, it is a ritual based on the façade of feigned appreciation and self-serving congratulatory opportunities.

Long time service to a company is rewarded through an agreed upon mechanism comprised of money and benefits. Granted, some are better than others and some are non-existent, but that’s the retirement deal and we should leave it at that. Except for the fact that many workers have seen their retirement promises swept away through bankruptcy proceedings. Auto workers, airline pilots, and other folks operating under an abrogated agreement are now left with little or no financial security in their supposedly golden years. While we cannot necessarily come to their rescue, perhaps we can find a way to prevent (or at least minimize) similar fates to future retirees.

Funded 401K’s allow workers to maintain control over the retirement funds throughout their period of employment. Should the company fold, the employees take their money and hit the road. The size of the nest egg may be smaller, but size is of no import if the egg disappears altogether. There are other vehicles that set retirement funds outside the reach of bankruptcy proceedings, but these provisos are generally limited to those sitting within the executive suites. Why is that, do you think?

Social security established a safety net for those that had nothing else. The age at which benefits would flow to them was set at 65 and, hence, became the recognized retirement age. They didn’t just pull that number out of their butt, you know. At the time, 65 years was the average life expectancy for an American male. While the life expectancy has increased, there has been no political will to similarly adjust the retirement age or onset of Social Security benefits. And now the holes in our safety net are gaping to the point where many fall through and its long term viability is in doubt.

There can be little doubt that the business retirement model must change along with a reasonable retirement age that reflects an increasingly aging, yet productive workforce. It seems that many over 65 years old are working anyway just to make ends meet so why not keep them as an official member of the workforce while saving Social Security for those for whom it was intended.

Turning back to the act of retiring: many believe that their absence spells doom for their chosen field of endeavor. There is a word for this: crap. Although the boss will try to convince any worker bee to stay on a little longer, the motive is self-serving in that the prolonged presence delays the need to fill a position. You know: interviewing, hiring, training. Why not suck just a bit more life out of our underling under the guise of “we need you”? Regardless, when one chooses to bow out, the operation continues on, unabated. No one is irreplaceable. Retirement was once described to me as pulling a hand out of a pail of water. Once the hand is out, there is no proof it was ever there. Such is the case with retirement. Get used to it and get over it. Others have put so much into their career that they simply cannot imagine life without their job. A sad commentary, to be sure, and one to be avoided if at all possible.

As for the cake, the watch, or the “party” comprised of guests with whom I have no desire to spend time? Give me my “laurel and hearty handshake” (thank you Mel Brooks) and be done with it. Retirement is just a phase of our employment, albeit the last phase, and merits no public recognition. Private recognition is a different matter, altogether. We all have special friendships forged in the workplace and there is nothing wrong in acknowledging those relationships at their natural conclusion. (I know…everyone says that they’ll keep in touch and we all know that those promises fail more often than not.) So invite your real friends and have a blow out to celebrate your newly found freedom rather than bemoaning your departure from servitude.

I am 627 days from my retirement date. Upon reaching it, should I be so lucky, I have no intention of publicly announcing my retirement nor do I desire a ceremony or cake or anything from those that owe me nothing save a check, should one still be available, and a door to walk through as I leave my workplace for the final time. I will, however, be breaking bread and imbibing with those who really want to be there with me!

Addicted to Lust

Who would have thought that the airwaves would be filled with discussions over the validity of sex addiction? Now, I know the news channels need to fill their schedule with something, but this? Spend a few minutes with me and I think we can put this baby to rest.

First of all, men are driven to procreate. It is in our DNA and ensures the continuation of the species. Second of all, men are aroused visually. Women? Not as necessarily so. One need look no further than the monthly men’s magazines that adorn the shelves of just about any store featuring printed material. Thirdly, men tend to become bored with the same sexual menu over time. Once again, the monthly magazines prove my point in that, after thirty days or so, most men are interested in gazing at a whole new assortment of naked females. Someone once told me that, for every beautiful woman, there is a man tired of sleeping with her. So we have a man who is easily bored and looking for new conquests. Anyone surprised yet?

Now, take our male and toss a commitment into the mix: marriage. Men do not get married for sex. Regular sex, perhaps, but we’ve already established that, over time, even the best sex becomes mundane. No, men get married for other reasons: companionship, love, the need of children, financial security, image, and so forth. None of the forgoing are bad reasons to get hitched and I’ll grant you that sex is an important part of the decision. Nevertheless, the fires of lust slowly transform into a lower, yet steady, flame of love, friendship, and a deeper realization of the importance of one’s mate. Theoretically, any way.

Some men are drawn to venture outside their marriage (and their vows of faithfulness) in search of that which can never be found: a relationship whose emotions will remain at a fever pitch into perpetuity. Or just the simple case of getting some “strange”. Either way, their only “crime” is a violation of a moral obligation to remain faithful. (Yes, I know that a would-be John is in trouble if found with a hooker, but this is more a legal sticking point than a truly criminal act.)

Most men who fall into this trap eventually wind up getting caught and either reconcile with their wives or hire a good divorce attorney. Unless, of course, the man in question has a financial stake in preserving the once-sanctified marital bliss. Or perhaps a public persona that has now lost its luster. Tiger Woods, for instance, or the more recent Jesse James. Tiger had the world by the balls, but his philandering finally caught up with him. Likewise, Jesse had Sandra Bullock on his arm and had it made in the proverbial shade. They’ve risked everything and, in an effort to retain some scintilla of a secure future, they claim that they are addicted to sex. “Couldn’t help it, honey: the devil made me do it.” If their wives fall for this crock of crap, they deserve what is sure to follow. A regular guy would stand up, take his medicine, deal with the consequences, and move on. Wiser, hopefully, but one can never tell. But rich and/or famous men can claim a higher ground and, in so doing, perhaps avoid the pitfalls of financial and personal ruin.

And this is where the sex addiction clinics come onto the scene. What, exactly, do these sex addiction clinics do? Are there classes? “Resistance to harsh interrogation techniques”, for instance, or perhaps copies of Ronald Reagan’s “Just say no” speech. And there’s always “Creative Cooking with Salt Peter”. No, this addiction isn’t harmful to an individual or society. It is not illegal and provides no ill-gotten gains. Hell, it’s not even an addiction. It’s simply the way men are wired and provides nothing but smoke and mirrors for those able to afford it. So I’d say that these clinics fill a need to find a way to keep the gravy train running smoothly for others while bringing in a good bit of gravy of their own.

No one thinks that a man gets married and immediately loses the urge to roam. Hell, most of us never lose the urge. And that, precisely, is what makes marriage the most unique partnership we know. A man commits his fidelity to a specific woman in the face of facts that show he will one day be tempted to stray. He knows it, she knows it, and they both trust that they will be different. And some are. Not every marriage includes infidelity and I’d venture to say the numbers of cheating are below 50%. The fact that a man can resist temptation for the love of his woman represents an enviable accomplishment and shouldn’t be understated. The rest need to own up to their failings and either return to bachelorhood or concentrate on a new set of priorities (sans the sex rehab).

A Beleaguered Relative

Every family has one: a relative who seems to have outstayed their welcome and falls to the bottom of the “who do we like best” list. We (America) have just such an unsavory relative: our uncle (a rich one, at that) whom we refer to as Uncle Sam. Uncle Sam has been around since the War of 1812 and has portrayed the embodiment of the government under which we operate. Lately, though, he has fallen into disfavor and I think he’s getting a bum rap.

Uncle Sam has lasted a good long while and survived under guiding hands that were better suited for other lines of work. He has endured booms and busts, wars and peace all the while protecting his family and providing for it at the same time. Someone recently described government as that which provides in ways that individuals cannot and I think that’s an apt portrayal.

Would you want to rely on a never-ending number of folks in charge of the highways and other parts of our infrastructure? Traveling from one town (or county or state) to the next would entail a wide range of conditions if it were not for a governmental agency overseeing the consistency. Want to put in your own water system or street lights? I doubt it, yet we are railing against what is currently seen as a greater role of government in our daily lives.

The latest, of course, is health care reform. Can we agree that innocent, hard-working people are being ground into grist as they try to cover exorbitant medical bills? If so, can we agree that something must be done to prevent the further degradation in the health of our “family”? The free market? Well, I haven’t seen much voluntary reform from insurance companies or hospitals or trial lawyers, have you? And the Republican chant of “the wrong way to reform” strikes me odd since that group controlled the White House and Congress from 2000-2006 and made not so much as a peep for a change in the way we deal with our sick and uninsured. That tells me they were pretty happy with the status quo and today’s mewlings from the right are more about sour grapes and less about you and me.

Uncle Sam is wasteful, you cry, and chockfull of abuse. You mean just like every other bureaucratic enterprise? Enron, AIG, and the like? Boy, now those guys knew how to run a company, huh? We all laugh at the poster where five men are leaning on shovels while one digs and we compare that to the efficiency of Uncle Sam. Have you ever needed assistance with a household project? Your helper(s) spends a good deal of time standing around awaiting your instructions or for you to complete a portion where assistance is not required. How long would it take to finish the job if you sent him home until the very moment you needed him? And how efficient? Larger construction projects, whether private or public, differ only in scale and the idleness of some is inherent in the tasks at hand.

Yes, there’s a good bit of Uncle Sam in our lives today, but most is concerned with keeping us safe and productive. The EPA, the FDA, the FCC, and the myriad of other agencies are all tasked, in one way or another, with safeguarding and/or regulating our food, water, medicines, work places, highways, and the like. If we had something I call corporate conscience, most of these departments could be disbanded. But it seems that we don’t and we need our Uncle to come in and make sure no one is selling us snake oil. That takes money and inspectors: two crucial elements left to whither on the vine in recent years and such failures lead us only to lament more loudly about our Uncle’s impotence.

The frustration with our current economic lot and the associated challenges it poses is more than understandable. To castigate our Uncle Sam and brand him as the root of all of our misery is nothing more than a campaign slogan used by those on the outside looking to be those on the inside. Remember Newt Gingrich’s Congressional Revolution of 1994 and his Contract With America? Read Joe Scarborough’s “Rome Wasn’t Burnt In a Day” and you’ll see what I mean.

In the meantime, let’s give our Uncle Sam a break. The system that created him is still the best available and we need to separate the rhetoric from the reason before we can identify the true level of governmental intrusion and whether its presence is helpful or hurtful. It takes a little more effort, true, but what’s that they say about “any thing worth having...”?

Breaking News

It’s hard to turn on any newscast today without seeing or hearing the phrase “Breaking News”. An attention getter, for sure, but is it being used too loosely? First of all, the only news that is truly breaking is that which is occurring right now and will not last an inordinate amount of time. An earthquake, for instance. Or the vote on medical reform (so long as the vote is imminent, taking place, or just completed). It won’t be “breaking” come tomorrow or the next day or the next. Maybe a “top story”, but that’s all it warrants by then. My other thought concerns the almost routine usage of this phrase. What with 24/7 news channels, isn’t some kind of news breaking by the second? Of course there is, but is it newsworthy?

I’m afraid that, in an attempt to keep pace with the more spontaneous internet updates available, the more traditional news gatherers are inserting hype where it needn’t appear. Not too long ago, newspapers and wire services allowed their content to be placed on the web free of charge. Their cash flows were healthy and they saw nothing wrong in cultivating a new frontier (the internet) for future users. Well, the cash flow has dried up and now many of us turn to the “free” format on line to get our daily dose of information. Rumors persist that the free ride is coming to an end, though, and I’d say that it might well be a good thing. The internet provides ready access to news, but should it be provided gratis to the detriment of established news gathering and reporting enterprises? How are we better served should our papers and reporters disappear?

While online news reports can combine print with audio and video, the idea that they can continue to prosper without the foundation of solid reporting and editing cannot be supported. But rather than maintain that high level of journalistic excellence long admired in the Fourth Estate, the more conventional news media outlets are lowering their standards by hailing “Breaking News” when it isn’t necessarily so. Of course, most news departments now answer to a parent corporation that seems to be more interested in entertaining than informing so maybe we should be less than surprised.

News in print and, to a lesser degree, on television or radio will never be able to compete with the speed of the web. Their futures, though, are safe so long as they strive to maintain the appropriate standards. The internet is maturing and, as it does, many find that credibility is lacking from many sites. Will I pay for online news? If I have to (I’m not stupid, you know). Or perhaps I’ll renew my subscription to the newspaper if it includes some sort of online coordination. Whatever the final format, we all need timely and accurate information. Dressing it up as “Breaking” leads us only to a tomorrow filled with an ever-increasing level of cynicism.

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”.