Quality Control

The control of quality generally refers to manufacturing processes to ensure a desirable end product. Those of you familiar with my thoughts know that I intend to put a twist on this term. I suggest that there is another, perhaps more important, definition: to ensure quality, we must control ourselves. “We” meaning you, me, and the rest of our society. Some behaviors may apply while others do not. Regardless, we need to take greater control over our physical and societal well-being or suffer the consequence of either a nanny-state or steady degradation.

Let’s start with our physical selves. We eat what we want to eat and when we want to eat it. We care not about nutritional information nor where our food came from nor whether it was properly processed. Burger King had it spot-on when they coined the phrase “have it your way” and we’ve taken that mantra to new heights. All of a sudden, seemingly, we are obese. Roughly 30% (more or less depending on location) of us are overweight. Yet we continue to gorge with nary a thought to the ramifications both to ourselves and those around us. Restaurants and such are averse to publicize the ingredients and nutritional data for their menus claiming that such regulatory intrusion is unwarranted. “We’re giving them what they want and the market will decide our fate”, they shout.

The tobacco industry is no different: it has known for decades of the deleterious effects of smoking yet claim that it is merely providing a product the customer wants. Alcohol? Same thing. The drug war continues with no end in sight and little hope of victory in its present form. Drug use in the U.S. remains high and we are the world’s best customer when it comes to illegal substances. The physical cost of drug addiction cannot be more clear and the social cost in crime and loss of productivity is equally destructive. Yet we continue to crave.

Within the greater, outside world (society) we spurn helmet laws yet ride our cycles without reasonable protection. We reject national programs such as universal health care yet fail to insure ourselves. This is all well and good until we suffer injuries from our lackadaisical ways and then expect the same previously despised organizations to come to our aid. We live in flood plains without flood insurance and ask for a federal helping hand when the river once again breeches its banks. We want a clean and safe Gulf of Mexico, but don’t want to stop drilling because we’d lose money.

We have stopped controlling ourselves, folks, and the quality of our lives is suffering as a result. We cannot look to companies or marketers for protection as they are only interested in convincing us that “new and improved” really means something of value. Without our self control we have only those that regulate our society (the government) to institute controls that may mitigate our shortsightedness. The idea of a nanny-state, however, doesn’t sit well in a free society, does it? No, but we must use that freedom to our benefit rather than fritter it away on hedonistic pursuits.

Small stuff, you say. The world is going to hell in a hand-basket and you want me to think twice about what I eat and how I live my life? Exactly! Because those choices we make directly affect how soon that hand-basket reaches its destination. Many of the poorer choices we’ve made over the years have resulted in various rules and regulations. The latest is legislation in an attempt to curb child obesity. It has stalled due to resistance from the food industry. What a shock.

Am I suggesting that we lead a spartan, puritanical life? Not in the least. But I urge everyone to think about the consequences of your daily choices. Fast food burgers and the like are fine from time to time, but a daily diet leads to a place where few of us would embrace. And the same applies to the things we watch or buy or rely upon to pass the time. Enjoy your life today, but keep an eye on tomorrow, too.

Intimidation

Anyone who tells you that they have never been intimidated is lying, plain and simple. Perhaps they have another word for it, but they’ve been in a situation where they accepted less than they deserved for fear of attention, retribution, appearance, or just plain uncertainty. We’ve all been there and we need to minimize our journeys into this zone where we allow others to take advantage of our momentary weaknesses.

Intimidation is an act that occurs only because one party allows it. That party being the individual cowed into a position of surrender. I cannot intimidate you without your permission and participation. Any attempt on my part to intimidate you is fruitless absent your cooperation. Without it, I’m out of luck. I may want to intimidate someone, but am disappointed should they refuse to play along.

With that in mind, look back and select those instances where you’ve been intimidated. Perhaps at work by a superior or, worse yet, a subordinate. How about as a customer dealing with a less-than-competent clerk. Intimidation can be seen within family units, too, as never-ending power struggles are waged between spouses, siblings, and anyone resting upon a limb of the family tree. Many of us are intimidated by officials (police, judges, politicians, etc.), but there is no real need for this based simply upon the fact that they represent authority. The question, though, is how to avoid being intimidated in these situations.

Well, how about learning to recognize them in the first place? When you expect someone to behave in a specific way and they show no interest in cooperating, they sometimes resort to an intimidating posture in the hopes that you will lower your demands. The posture may be body language, facial expression, tone of voice, or choice of words. Regardless, if the response leaves you on the defensive and beginning to think that you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time and asking for the wrong thing, you’ve been intimidated. Usually, these instances are acknowledged in the middle of the night when we sit up in bed and say, “You know what I should have said?” or “I should have done this or that”.

This realization, albeit ill timed, leads us to be better prepared to deal with similar instances in the future. Call it visualization if you wish, but being ready for someone that would rather you go away is essential in resisting the intimidation that precludes your early disengagement. Older folks have gained the reputation of being cranky or grouchy. I submit it is only their readiness to strongly oppose any and all attempts to intimidate them into a position of settling for less. They’ve heard all the excuses and have an arsenal of arguments ready to stymie those that would rather not. Hooray for them! Alright, hooray for us!

One common statement I’ve heard is the one that describes me as intimidating and, as a result, suggests that I am to blame for the problem. We’ve already established that I can intimidate no one without their permission, but the statement serves to change the subject from the matter at hand to my demeanor. Mission accomplished if you’re the clerk, subordinate, relative, or anyone else wanting to avoid a discussion of your failure to accommodate my request.

I urge you to stay strong in the presence of “You want me to do what?” or “I just started working here today.” or “That’s not my department.” or “I’m in charge. Why are you questioning my authority?” These are all phrases intended to intimidate you into either changing your request or going away altogether. And if you do, welcome to world of intimidation. For no good reason, you have altered your expectation. Are there times when a realignment of a request is in order? Of course. But in those instances, there is no angst growing within you. You’ve simply changed the scope of your demands to fit within the parameters that exist. You don’t go to a restaurant and expect an oil change, do you? Sometimes we ask without having all the facts and sometimes those facts change our perspective. Nothing wrong with that. No intimidation; just the readjustment of expectation based on rational thought.

This kinder, gentler approach to society has created a politically correct atmosphere where most everyone is afraid of making any demand upon anybody for fear of offense of some sort. This only ensures a slow degradation of the quality of our lives simply because we choose flight over fight. Review your requests and if they are reasonable, for god’s sake stick to your guns. And should you choose to seek out the individual responsible for your intimidation, you need look no further than the nearest mirror.

The Name of the Game

Funny how you just know about some things. When I heard of LeBron James’ one hour quasi-press conference last Thursday night I knew that would be my topic of the week. Relax: I’m not going to orate on the “decision”, but rather explore the larger picture and its ramifications.

But first, let me briefly orate: there is a philosophy in all of sport that promotes letting the game come to you. All too often, athletes chase their dream through various machinations that generally leave them short of the pinnacle they covet. Others, that let the game come to them, enjoy a more favorable legacy regardless of their personal achievements. LeBron has chased the dream. His impatience will forever tarnish whatever greatness the NBA has in store for him.

Now let’s move on to the bigger picture. LeBron is free to announce a one hour event during which he will name his future team. ESPN is free to provide the air time and hype it up as much as possible. Much has been written about the wisdom of either, but I’m left wondering why so many people tuned in. Ratings for this spectacle broke records previously held by other, more meaningful, sporting events. What’s up with that?

Our society has always sought out recreation as a diversion to the more mundane requirements of daily life. You know: work, school, and the like. It’s not called recreation by accident as the diversion-du-jour allows us to take a deep breath and re-create our energies before returning to those mundanities. Could it be that the proverbial tail is wagging the dog as society becomes more concerned with all-star ballots than November ballots? Do we use our smart phones to dumb us down as we choose mind-numbing games and social networks at the expense of news, productivity, and a generally more informed existence? Thursday night’s announcement would tend to bear that theory out.

Many of us can name the highest paid athlete or the latest celebrity to appear in court. Many can name the current Dancing With the Stars champion. Twenty thousand fans showed up in Rockefeller Center for Lady GaGa’s recent Today Show concert. How many know who Rockefeller was? How many can name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court? Or any justice, for that matter. How about your elected representatives? You know: mayor, state reps, governor, senators, congressman, president. Shouldn’t these names be of more importance? Don’t these folks hold greater sway over our future?

Of course they do, but, as society becomes more isolated from their government, who can blame them for turning to more pleasurable pursuits? Call it a state of denial or perhaps an effort to find a positive moment in a day normally filled with disappointment and detours. Either way, we seem to be concentrating on the sublime while ignoring the substance. Sadly, many legislators prefer a disassociated electorate over an engaged one. Why? Well, it’s easier to do as they please if no one’s paying attention, isn’t it?

There’s nothing wrong with looking for a ray of sunshine or two in a dismal day, but overdoing that figurative sunshine wreaks the same damage to our mental state as an over-abundant dose of the literal sunshine on our skin cells. Feel free to divert your attention in an attempt to recapture that spark of creativity and energy, but be wary of spending too much time there. Let the LeBron’s and the Lohan’s, the Gibson’s and the GaGa’s, and the rest of the “celebrity” world go on about their business while you go on about yours. Drop in for a look now and again, but keep in mind that, while they are playing the fame game, your future lies in the success of a far more important contest: life.

(Second) Guessing Game

It seems safe to say that our political system has gone from a period of sophomoric partisanship to an all out attempt to bring any meaningful progress to a halt in the name of recapturing lost power. Presently, the Republican Party is playing the role of spoiler as they block legislative action and elect to second guess any decision made by any member of the Obama administration. While I find myself more philosophically aligned with the left than the right, I can hold out little hope that anything would be markedly different if the tables were turned (and someday in the not-too-distant-future they will be). Those on the outside have chosen to thwart any and all attempts to enact an agenda dear to the majority’s heart for fear, I imagine, that, god forbid, it might work. Anything else is lamented and suggestions are cast about that a better decision and hence a better result would have been possible had someone from the other party been in charge. Call it gridlock or whatever, but at the end of the day the electorate is left holding the bag as more and more would-be voters are turned off by the spectacle. Their shoulders are slumped and their feet scuffle along the pavement as they sigh and ask, “What can I do?”

Well, my home state of California may have come up with the answer: in last month’s election, the state passed a proposition that a) opens up primaries to all voters regardless of party affiliation and b) allows the top two vote getters to move on to the general election, once again regardless of party affiliation. In the past several primaries for state and federal office, a voter was forced to choose a party and then vote a ballot comprised of those specific candidates. Independents could choose a ballot prior to voting, but were similarly limited once that choice was made. As a result, primary voter turnout was sometimes very thin, especially if a given party had candidates running unopposed.

With this new system, we’ve really shaken up the status quo: party affiliation takes a back seat to substance and third party candidates are finally offered a level playing field. Special interest money must now be spread across a larger field with less chance of picking a winner and the major parties no longer have a grip on the throat of alternative ideas that neither wish to entertain. With all these ingredients, I can’t help but think that primary turnout will soar as more, not less, feel an opportunity to have a say in their governance.

And the general election will, as a result of the open primary, allow the top two contenders to face off. No, not the top Republican and top Democrat, the top two candidates, period. Maybe they’re both Republicans, or maybe both Democrats, or maybe neither. Who cares? We’ve got the two candidates that drew the most votes. What could be more representative than that? (I know it’s hard to believe, but the two major parties were the major opponents of this proposition.)

The prospect of a wide open elective process represents a clean break from business as usual. It clears the back rooms of stale cigar smoke and brings a ray of sunshine into the cloak room that might finally introduce a cadre of individuals more interested in compromise and progress than intransigence and stalemate.

My hope is that other states, their voters, and their representatives will be watching (some with trepidation and others with temerity). This is an idea with the potential of igniting the revolution in Washington that we’ve heard so much about and awaited for so long. And bloodless, at that.

Paranoia Personified

It was early evening and she was home alone. A typical, idyllic day on the ranch. At least until she came out of the bedroom and saw a stranger in her kitchen. The animal took over as she cried out, “What the f**k are you doing in my house?” He ran up the stairs with her in pursuit. They met on the landing; the intruder had a blanket over his head. She snatched it away to get a look at him as he pushed her down. He left by the front door and jumped into his pickup truck which had been backed up to the door and had the tailgate down. She was at his heels as he sped up the driveway.

“She” is my wife and “he” is now in jail thanks to modern technology. More of that later. As some of you may know, we reside on a forty acre parcel in a rural area of Northern California. Eleven other similar parcels comprise our neighborhood and a gate exists at the front of our road to keep folks from exploring our properties and the river that winds through them. The gate suffered fatal injuries in a collision several months ago and its absence may have well contributed to my wife’s event. But then again, access to entry codes in a small town is easily obtained.

Regardless, our seeming island of tranquility amidst the madness of 21st century humanity had been invaded. I was on my way to work when the deed went down and promptly turned around for home when my wife called. By the time I got back to our house, the local Sheriff’s deputies were ons scene doing what they do: dusting for prints, taking pictures, and recording information. I got busy with the requisite cancellation of credit cards and such. In addition to my wife’s purse/wallet, the robber got her new iPhone that had been activated mere hours before and our pistol. (The top drawer of the nightstand may not be the best place for your gun, by the way.)

It struck me suddenly that an accompanying feature of the phone was Mobile Me. This allows the wireless syncing of data and it included a “Find My iPhone” option. Lo and behold, after a push of a button and a few moments to allow for refinement, a bulls-eye appeared over a home in our nearby town. The deputy on scene quickly relayed the information and soon thereafter my wife was looking at a photo array of possible perpetrators. She selected the photo corresponding to the suspect residing in the house displayed on my monitor and the search warrant was prepared.

The Sheriffs elected to wait until morning to serve the warrant, but the suspect thwarted their attempt and, instead, led them on a high speed chase through the countryside, throwing items out his window all the while. I came to know this by once again asking my computer to find my iPhone. It was now somewhere in the middle of nowhere. I called the detective who told me of the chase and he was now attempting to locate the phone on the side of the road. Once again, I led him to the proper spot while looking at a satellite image on my monitor. “Go to the next big tree on your left” was the gist of my directions since their were no structures in the vicinity. Once he got close, I selected yet another option which sent a signal to the phone and it began to chirp. The cops heard it, found it, and also found our pistol nearby.

The suspect now resides within the walls of our county jail and has been linked to several other robberies/burglaries in the area. Whether this goes to trial remains to be seen, but no one can claim a better result from a decidedly undesirable event. End of story? No. In fact the true story is just beginning.

When one’s boundaries are violated, an instinct kicks in that spurs actions to prevent a similar event. The boundaries can be personal, regional, or national. The attacks of 9-11 differ from my wife’s only in scope as both of the relative boundaries, drawing a line between bliss and barbarism, were shown to be simple façades. The TSA and other homeland security measures arose from the ashes of the World Trade Center and we were faced with a similar motive of establishing obstacles to future invaders. A “build a moat” mentality takes precedence over all else and, left unchecked, results in major expenditures of time and money.

To what end, though? While my home and family might be more secure with alarm systems, gates, sub-gates, motion detectors, flood lights, guard dogs, and who-knows-what-else we have mortgaged our freedom in exchange. Our open spaces are now defined by lines of defense and the sense of tranquility has been replaced by the dull hum of apprehension. The trade-off seems unpalatable and I am successfully fighting the urge to transform my paradise into a penitentiary.

Yes, we’ve examined our habit patterns and changed some of our routines. I’ve installed some economical security systems and, yes, the gate will soon be replaced at the top of our community’s road. Some have suggested we trade in our three dogs for one with an attitude (and teeth). Not gonna happen, folks. All that would do is guarantee several medical bills or lawsuits from dog bites to protect against an event which will, more than likely, never recur.

It will take some time to return to our sense of normality, but I’m confident that we will come to the point where our lives will go on relatively unchanged. I’m sorry that we cannot necessarily say the same for the country. Air travel is now more of an arduous trek and paranoia seems to be our current national frame of mind. A moat around my house or our nation will solve nothing of substance and we will pay a steep price should we choose to dig.

When

This is a word commonly heard when refilling a coffee cup, iced tea glass, or maybe even upon being served a portion of food. In this context, saying “when” signals that you are pleased with the current amount offered. “When” also has commercial applications, but in those instances it generally refers to reaching an intolerable level of abuse.

The pilots of Spirit Airlines recently said “when” and withheld their services after a protracted (and fruitless) negotiation period with their management team. After several days of walking a picket line, their differences with the airline were settled and they are back in their cockpits. Nurses in Minneapolis recently staged a one-day strike to protest proposed staffing levels. Striking nurses? My god, people will die! No, they won’t. The union must give ten days notice of a job action to allow hospitals the time for rescheduling elective procedures and transferring patients.

One might think that, what with a national unemployment figure hovering around 10%, this would be a terrible time to say “when”. We should feel lucky to have a job, right? Well, many of the unemployed have a specific set of skills that cannot be universally applied to other positions while others have no specific skills, at all. In the meantime, those who can claim continued employment find that the continued increase in productivity with a stagnated wage is drawing them ever-nearer to the point of “when”.

Imagine for a moment that you have been diagnosed with a slow moving infection that originated in the tip of your little finger on your non-writing hand. It is incurable and your only way to fight it is the amputation of affected tissue as it advances. First goes your pinkie, then your hand. But you write with the other one, so you cope and adapt. But then you lose your lower arm and then the whole thing. Slowly, inexorably, you are less and less. Until you get to that point where continued decimation is no longer a viable option. “Let me go”, is your new mantra as the fight is no longer commensurate with the reward.

Worker bees are approaching the same point in their careers. Slowly, inexorably, their pay and quality of life have diminished to a point where continued effort to maintain seems ridiculous. Some have no choice but to hang on and hang in while hoping for a more benevolent time. Others simply quit and go their separate ways. And others are afforded the protection of an organization that unifies their concerns into a chorus that cannot be ignored. We call these organizations labor unions. Unions have not enjoyed much success over the past decade, or so, but I can’t help but believe that their renaissance is afoot. The labor/management pendulum has reached its maximum arc to the side of the bosses and must now start the return swing to labor. Legislation that makes it easier for employee groups to organize will add to the momentum as more and more laborers say “when”.

Nurses, airline pilots, teachers, and other labor groups are seeking avenues of redress and an organization that protects members of the work group while voicing displeasure seems to fit their bill. They now have the ability to say “when” while fighting for a better future for themselves and for those that require their services. The issue at hand is rarely as simple as “pay”, but that reason is usually quoted in articles and interviews. More often than not, other issues outweigh the size of the paycheck. Hospital staffing, classroom size, and pilot fatigue are just some of the issues facing those within the associated industries and society is better served when these concerns are addressed. The sad truth seems to be that, without the security of an organized work force, such concerns can be ignored.

There is a difference in saying “when” and withholding services. Only after unsuccessful negotiations and unresolved shortcomings in the workplace will a strike be called. It is, after all, used as a last resort and will be settled sooner if would-be opportunists resist the lure of crossing the picket line. Scabs have been around since the advent of striking and “scab” simply stands for “Still Collecting All Benefits”. An ugly name, to be sure, but a logical methodology behind the acronym. Whether the individual comes from the outside or within the union’s ranks, the act does nothing but delay a solution to a long festering impasse. In the meantime, the end user receives something less than the level of expertise normally provided by those on the picket line. Some strikes are broken if enough scabs are willing to cross the picket line, but after several months the scabs, themselves, realize that the job is no longer worth keeping and move on to other opportunities.

Unfortunately, there will always be collateral damages during any strike: passengers, patients, students, and customers of all kinds. The ability to say “when” is essential, though, if we are to maintain a balance between those that seek profit over progress and those that care more for quality over quantity.

Too Big to Succeed

We’ve all seen how bureaucracies seem to be the least effective when most needed and I can’t help but wonder why this is the case? Are they destined to fail? Are they infiltrated with incompetents? Just crazy enough to be true, but I doubt it.

Let’s start a business, you and I. OK, now we need some employees. Who’s going to oversee them? Well, I guess we’ll need a manager for that cuz you and I are involved in the frying of bigger fish. Payroll? We need an accountant and office manager. Oops: someone got hurt and is filing a workman’s comp claim. We need to get an insurance guru that knows how to handle that. And, before you know it, we’ve got us a bureaucracy! Each of those main players we’ve brought on will, in time, need their own main players and the corporate layers will grow accordingly.

Further dilution and separation of responsibilities will occur as a matter of course and in the name of “efficiency”. You and I are happy because our company seems to operating at its fullest potential. Our organizational chart is a thing to behold, what with its universe of divisions and departments. Life is good.

Until the operation goes very much awry and decisions are needed now so actions can follow immediately thereafter. A fire? No problem: who’s got the key to the fire extinguishers? Well, let’s check with the Fire Prevention Unit. That guy’s on vacation, though. Who’d he place in charge? Can’t tell by looking at the chart. Hell, let’s break the lock. Who authorizes the breaking of corporate property? Don’t know. Where’s the crash axe? We stored them with the fire extinguishers. It made sense at the time.

The Keystone Kops would have been proud to play a part in our little skit. But this kind of comedic catastrophe plays itself out every day yet the bureaucracy survives. We have a panel to study what went wrong and why, rearrange or realign the departments, maybe fire a few scapegoats, and then proudly proclaim that the system is now safe and ready for anything. Until that “anything” occurs, of course. Does it come as a surprise to anyone why we have come to distrust a bureaucracy? I wouldn’t think so and it follows that our distrust flows surely to our governments (local, state, and federal) because they seem to have perfected the art of bureaucratization. So what do we do about it?

Accept it. “What?”, you shout. Well, with some exceptions, but the nature of a bureaucracy is no different than that of a scorpion or rattlesnake. Sooner or later, when dealing with one or the other, you are likely to be bitten. It is simply the nature of the beast in question. A bureaucracy, though, is man-made and can be altered (over time) to provide a more streamlined and timely response to problems. That involves the elimination of many departments and their associated personnel and is precisely why it will not occur overnight. Shrinking through attrition is the most equitable solution, I’d say, and, in the meantime, I’d suggest that every bureaucracy has a Disaster Czar with ultimate authority and control. And even then, problems would arise, but hopefully fewer and smaller ones.

No one can deny that corporate and governmental ne’er-do-wells use a bureaucracy for political or professional cover when things go wrong on their watch. Conversely, many good folks with honorable intentions get chewed up in the same grist mill. And we just can’t tell one from the other, can we? All we can do is try to simplify the structure that leads to such undesirable conclusions. In the meantime, however, we are left with debacles similar to the current BP mess in the Gulf of Mexico. We have a corporate bureaucracy trying to co-exist with a political one. It’s like watching two teenagers learn to waltz: countless missteps and bruised toes.

Many conglomerates in the financial crisis were labeled as too big to fail and were subsequently offered public assistance. I submit that many of our bureaucracies are too big to succeed and must be simplified and allowed to atrophy so as to reach a size that lends itself to greater success. (How about starting with the IRS?)