The Other Wars

It’s been said that war is hell and who could argue with that? The “war” refers to military campaigns. It is bloody and many lives are lost in an attempt to achieve specific objectives. There are, however, other kinds of war that have been waged within this country over the past forty years, or so. These are social wars and most notable among them are the war on poverty, the war on drugs, and the war on terrorism. Let’s take a few minutes and see how those campaigns have gone.

In January of 1964, President Lyndon Johnson declared a war on poverty. This declaration ushered in programs such as Head Start, Medicare, Medicaid, and food stamps. These programs exist to this day yet, while the rates of poverty declined initially, they have remained steady since the 1970’s. What happened? Why did things start out so good and then level off? We can start with the bureaucratic beasts of fraud, waste, and abuse. For every multi-layered organization, within the government or outside of it, these creatures will lurk. Money meant for good purposes ends up in the wrong pocket to the disadvantage of those intended. Political will slackened over the years and big government foes whittled budgets and limited resources whenever the opportunity presented itself. This more than likely culminated in Ronald Reagan’s 1988 State of the Union Speech when, in referring to the War on Poverty, he said, “Poverty won.”

In 1971, President Nixon declared a war on drugs. This war has raged ever since and our current drug czar, Gil Kerlikowske, recently conceded that it has not been successful. Over a trillion dollars has gone into the fight, thousands of lives have been lost, and, according to Mr. Kerlikowske, the problem is “if anything, magnified, intensified.” Once again: what happened? Not so much a bureaucratic mess and lack of political consistency, but perhaps the wrong strategy. Much like prohibition showed, a government cannot legislate the desire for a substance and, if the desire exists, one will find a way to fulfill it. (President Reagan’s “Just say no” campaign was naive, at the very best.) Incarceration has only resulted in a prison system bulging at the seams and crimes associated with drug use continue seemingly unabated.

The war on terror is our latest social declaration and it was instituted by George W. Bush. While we do not have decades of experience on this front, I think that we can say that bureaucratic malfeasance and political inconsistencies are sure to arise and the idea that repeated bombing, strafing, and the like will change the hearts and minds of would-be terrorists is misguided. Yet another war to ultimately fall short of its objective.

So do we give in to poverty, drug use, and evil-doers? Of course not. But a change in strategy seems long overdue. How about admitting that there will always be a hard core, unemployed, welfare-supported segment of our society and concentrating on those on the cusp of success? How about legalizing and then controlling drugs? (California has such an initiative slated for November.) And how about admitting that being #1 inspires many to resent us. Terrorism will never be defeated. It may be minimized or localized, but a shock and awe approach seems only to exacerbate the problem.

In the meantime, keep in mind that these “wars” were thought up in the marketing department. They make great campaign slogans and stir up the emotions, but generally fall short on substance. Much is spent, lives are lost (in one way or another), yet a failed strategy survives. The outcome of any war ultimately relies on the those in the trenches (you and me) rather than the generals and an indifferent of society is as much to blame as anyone or anything else.

The Messenger

Of all the thankless jobs in the world, the messenger must be the worst. Simply because messengers are many times the bearers of bad news or represent an obstacle to progress. They are not to blame for the ill tidings or labyrinthine procedures they prescribe, but they take the brunt of the heat from us and that just ain’t right.

The “bad news” messenger is generally a spokesperson of some sort or an intermediary that is removed from the decision making process, but nevertheless must pass the information on to those affected. Your repair bill for the roof or the car or the furnace or the you-name-it is not the doing of the messenger (cashier or repairman). Yet that is the individual who gets a dose of your outrage. The corporate mouthpiece has nothing to do with downsizing or outsourcing, yet once again, that face becomes the target of malice and threats. A high school classmate of mine was recently in such a position. Her company was involved in a corporate take-over and she was the designated spokesperson. The news was not good for a good number of employees and their reaction to her announcements created the need for bodyguards and other heightened security measures.

The “obstructionist” messenger is generally a clerk. Given little or no training and no authority whatsoever, it falls upon this poor soul to inform you that the outcome you desire must be accompanied by letters, copies, and other seemingly random requirements if you hope for any chance of success. Is the clerk your enemy? No. Does the clerk enjoy the redness in your face and the bulging of your veins? Well maybe, but only because it is probably the only enjoyment this position provides. Regardless, orders are orders and this is just one of the many stupid things a clerk is ordered to say with the hope from higher-ups that you will simply give up, go away, and leave them to their business of maximizing profits while minimizing customer service. But not before the clerk suffers yet another rip in the backside.

Shooting the messenger has always been a pastime for many of the ill-informed, but the practice has spread to those that should know better. Why is that, do you think? I think it is due largely to the ever increasing frustration with poor customer service and the economic pressure of staying even with the cost of living. Add to that the perception of working for a faceless corporation that cuts employees off at the knees while trotting out a spokesperson assigned to describe the heart-wrenching decisions that led up to the amputation. In other words, we’re pissed off and we need to vent to someone who we connect with the current injustice being foisted upon us. And, generally, that someone is the messenger.

Whichever type of messenger you encounter, they each have their own problems with a whole new set of messengers. The “bad news” types are trying to hang on to a job just like the “obstructionists” and expecting them to simply up and quit their position because of their unenviable assignment is naive. We can always detour around the obstructor by asking for a supervisor, but we’re simply stuck with the bad news bearer and must try to avoid shooting (figuratively speaking, of course) in that direction.

If you stop and think about it, each one of us is a messenger at one time or another and many times our messages are not filled with welcome news. With that thought in mind, it might well be easier to avoid taking undue umbrage towards the unfortunate person tasked with passing on information that is all too often less than that for which we had hoped. Call it empathy, call it consideration. At the very least, call it humane.

The Ultimate Flip

Switching party affiliation is nothing new in the world of politics: Democrat to Republican, visa versa, or from one party to the “hallowed” Independent status. Charlie Crist is only the latest example as he has bolted from the Republican Party to become an Independent in the Florida’s upcoming senatorial primary.

I can see valid reasons for changing one’s party affiliation: the evolution, over time, of a person’s priorities or political philosophy. Likewise, a party’s priorities or philosophy may become too much of a dichotomy for a once-loyal member to remain in the fold. The timing is the thing, I’d say, and Crist’s timing speaks of things more important than those voters and their priorities that might send him to the Senate.

Approaching an election, be it a primary or the general election, is not the time to suddenly experience the epiphany that leads to a change of party affiliation. Could it happen? Sure, but no one’s going to believe it. Theoretically, anyway. History shows that sudden, last-minute flips sometimes result in victory. And therein lies my incredulity.

Anyone switching political horses late in the race does it for one thing: they see a loss on election day and are willing to do anything to keep (or gain) the seat at the trough in Washington. Their politics have not changed nor has their old affiliation become so abhorrent that they can no longer abide it. It is simply self preservation. Period.

So why should we reward them with a vote? They’re twisting in the wind and hoping that we won’t notice their desperation. Some go so far as repaint themselves as “outsiders” or “independents”. You know how I feel about these terms if you drop in regularly. Pure, unadulterated crap. There is no long-time politico that is an outsider and independents simply do not exist as every member of a political body is beholden to someone. It is the nature of the beast.

So what is a voter to do when faced with a born-again candidate running under a new banner? Many think, “Well, I like him (or her, of course), so I’ll vote for him”. Hold on a moment: here’s a candidate that dumps his affiliation to get a better chance of being elected and now pontificates on honesty and integrity and changing the system. The only mea culpa I find acceptable as election day draws near and a candidate flips is, “Hey, I’m trying to get elected here”. I can’t argue with the honesty although I may take issue with the timing and the overall viability of the new, improved seeker of public office.

We shouldn’t vote for anyone based on likability or familiarity. We should vote on issues and believability. Any candidate that flips allegiance as the election draws near should be looked on in the harsh light of skepticism. Otherwise, we encourage the continued manipulation of the electorate in the name of simply getting elected.

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).