Shortcuts

Humans are lazy, in case you haven’t noticed. We will line up to buy the latest labor-saving device despite knowing nothing about what it does or if we need it. If it’s easier or quicker, we’re interested. These doodads all fall under the heading of “shortcut” and we love shortcuts. More than likely, they started out as a geographic means to simply shorten the distance from A to B. I’m only guessing because I wasn’t around when they became popular, but I can’t help but think that someone was looking for a way to shave a few minutes off of the trek from the hunting ground to the tepee.

Like most everything else, the shortcut has taken on an existence of its own, much to the detriment of society. The lottery? A shortcut to riches. The microwave? A shortcut to dinner. The Tivo or DVR? Shortcuts to our favorite programs absent those pesky commercials. Even computers have shortcuts to save the user a nano-second or two in opening a program. Our patience has been overwhelmed by searching for that elusive shortcut needed at a particular moment for a particular purpose. Ironically, when we find our shortcut, we immediately look to find a shortcut to the shortcut!

This never-ending quest has found itself into the political arena, too. As election day approaches, some candidates are painting their campaigns as a way to end our current economic malaise and immediately turn a corner to prosperity. A shortcut, in other words. I hate to break it to you, but no matter who wins what race, our near-term future is bound to be full of stagnation or, at best, a snail’s pace of progress. Why?

Have you ever eaten too much of a given food and then suffered the effects? You know: bloating, burping, hurling, etc. Eventually the “runs” (or “trots” if you prefer) show up to complete the entire miserable experience. No step can be omitted: it is a process that must run its course before we feel any better and there is no way to speed up the recovery. Well, think of our economy having over-indulged on housing. We are maybe half-way through that entire miserable experience and no shortcut exists that will save us from what is yet to come.

You may think I am asking you to vote in a certain manner that might suggest “staying the course”. Not true. I am saying, though, that there is no magic bullet, no shortcut that will allow us to escape the future pangs as our economy recovers. Less stimulus...more stimulus...lower taxes...higher taxes? Beats me as to what formula may at least minimize the discomfort. Regardless, we’re in this to the end and the end is still a ways off.

I’m no more thrilled by this as you. But it is what it is. Who knows: maybe our thirst for shortcuts will be slaked for a time. Probably not, though. After all, we’re a lazy species.

Midterm Exam

Mid-term elections, that is. And the best part is that the exam is ungraded. At least for now. We’ll have to wait and see what November 2nd brings and then wait further to see if the new boss is any different than the old boss. In the meantime, though, let’s look at some general issues that can be answered individually.

First of all, I’m curious about the level of excitement at rallies for many of the candidates. I can understand the excitement a prospect of change creates, but no change has occurred yet and, even though a new elected individual takes office there is no guarantee of change in the future. The excitement sounds like marketing to me and that means shills are in the crowd to amp up the reactions. Something less than transparent and honest, huh?

I’m also puzzled by the notion that political neophytes labeled as outsiders are running for office on the grounds of upsetting government’s apple cart and taking us all to a better day. Don’t get me wrong: I encourage grass roots efforts and have espoused their impact in previous writings. But there is a difference between instilling the desire for change in the halls of power and throwing them out to do it ourselves.

Have you ever been unhappy with your doctor or lawyer? And, if so, did you perform your own surgery or act as your own counsel? Probably not. You more than likely sought out another qualified professional, i.e. career-type, to take over. Why would the political world be any different? To think that Joe or Jane next-door-neighbor/just like me can step in and handle the rigors of governing is absurd. I don’t know about you, but I want someone a good deal smarter than I. I’m not voting for the person I’d most like to invite over for dinner. I’m voting for the best possible person to lead my city/state/country through the next several years. Or, perhaps worse yet: thinking that Joe or Jane CEO can take over a political position and run it like a board room is beyond naive. Different careers require different skill sets and we should all know this.  

Speaking of the CEO types running for office next month, has anyone asked why they would spend millions for a position that pays much less? Many claim to be fiscal conservatives, but the campaigns they are conducting spend money as if it’s going out of style. Meg Whitman, running for California’s Governor, has spent over $100 million of her own money! Either she is fiscally irresponsible or is planning for a huge return on her investment. The question in my mind centers around how she’s going to get that return and from whom.

There can be no argument that times are something less than ideal and everyone is looking for the first rays of sunshine after a terrible storm. Our error lies in the sense that someone who has never done this before will be more successful than someone who has spent a lifetime doing it. While a change in office-holder may well be in order, wouldn’t we be better served by electing someone who at least knows the modus operandi of the political animal?

While conversations, debates, and arguments over political topics tend to be filled with vitriol and high levels of emotion, I would suggest that a calmer state of mind is required before casting a ballot. Know the candidates, the issues, and the priorities you might share with a candidate. With this information, pull the lever or fill in the box or punch out the square (keeping an eye on any hanging chads). This is all best done with a calm and collected mind lest emotion sweep us to rash and unthought-out actions. 

Regardless, nothing will change overnight within any political system merely because a new class of freshmen (or an individual Governor “Frosh”) takes office. While the promise of better times may be enough for the campaign trail, we must look beyond the hype and cast our votes wisely. Doing any less may lead us to an even harsher reality.

Introductory Offers

It’s hard to find a segment of commerce that doesn’t offer some sort of introductory offer to new customers. Telephone and cable/satellite TV providers definitely lead the list, but other commercial enterprises look for ways to entice you to bring them your business. This ploy can be called the hook for it is offered not because you are an excellent person, but because the business in question wants a bigger market share and more customers are required for that. Once they have you, it’s on to the next new customer. An honorable practice? I don’t know; it sounds much like what a drug dealer does in handing out “freebies” to what are hoped to be future clients.

I can see why companies offer these incentives to new customers, but I fail to see why the same companies are loathe to provide any consideration to long-time relationships. There can be only one reason: the percentage of folks taking their business elsewhere is very low. If no one leaves, why offer them anything for their loyalty? Uh oh, that must mean that those who take our money care nothing about us other than the continued cash flow we represent. So much for that slogan of “your business is very important to us” meaning anything of import.

OK, so be it, but the playing field is far from level if we, the customers, do not exercise our rights to affiliate with other companies offering identical services at a lower, albeit introductory, price. I know, it can be a hassle at times and, at other times, impossible due to availability, etc. But by and large, the introductory-offer scam succeeds because we allow it. Sometimes the mere threat of switching allegiance is enough to extract some reward for our loyalty, but even that takes some effort from us.

If you’ve had quite enough of seeing better offers for new customers, I’ve a suggestion: take advantage of as many of them as possible. Change your providers for phone, television, utilities, and so forth if you’re able. Some options are limited by geography or unique services available only through certain companies. Even then, call your provider and tell them you plan on switching unless they reward your continued patronage.

Many times we go into a retail store and are offered a discount on our purchase if we open a credit card. And, many times, we’d rather not take the time. Take the time! Save some bucks and then cancel the card if you want. The offer is made in the hopes that you’ll be back to spend even more. So what’s wrong with dashing the hopes of an entity trying to get a hook into you? It sure sounds fair to me.

If we took the time to send a message to those with whom we do business that we deserve some recognition, too, I think we’d see a realignment in the world of introductory offers. No, they wouldn’t go away, but we may see more perks extended to long-time customers. It’s all about being savvy consumers and recognizing the true motive of those seeking our business. Would this be considered a large victory? Perhaps not, but in these economic times, any victory is worth savoring.

Breaking the Cycle

Well, it looks like the Mid-East peace process is once again grinding to a halt. If there is any question as to why the fighting within this region of the world seems endless, one look no further than this YouTube link . You'll find a clip for an old Andy Griffith Show and it highlights the history of feuding (the first 4 minutes or so should clear everything up for you). Unfortunately, the Israeli-Palestine conundrum isn’t the only one plaguing the region. Factions fighting within borders and the region’s hatred towards the West combine to make a very volatile situation. 

Of all the obstacles standing in the way of peace, the suicide bomber poses the greatest dilemma for those seeking a better tomorrow. How does one go about deterring an individual who is bent on self-destruction? Most of our suicide-type terrorists are Muslim simply because the Muslims believe in a richly rewarding afterlife for martyrs. And therein lies the key to dissuading these folks from their present course of carnage. What I offer is a solution that disengages the potential suicide bombers from their warring ways, introduces capitalism to the region, and makes an enormous amount of money for the principal architects of the plan.

I suggest tasking Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, two of the brightest techno-gurus around, with creating a solar powered video game platform along the line of existing state-of-the-art systems currently available in the United States. Solar power is essential as the sun is the only reliable energy source in the Middle East where most of our suicidal guys and gals seem to be located. Battery back-up would also be essential to allow for use during the hours of darkness.

Now, with the system designed, we ask the best designers to create a whole new generation of video games with names like “Suicide Bomber” and “Find the Infidel”. These games would center on the goal of successfully completing a series of missions that would ultimately lead to the Martyrdom level. It would be very difficult to reach this level of success, but once there our player would find something less than expected: the 72 virgins would be far from desirable and the surrounding environment similarly distasteful. Or, as an alternative, our little video console would self-destruct.

We now have a fully functional entertainment package. All that’s left to do is airdrop as many of these babies as possible throughout the entire region. Think what video games have done for average American teen-agers: they are oblivious to most activities occurring around them and their parents are hard-pressed to get them to do the most menial of chores. Now consider the plight of the Middle Eastern parent seeking to engage his child into preparing for a life of violence.

Why in the world would a kid want to lose his only life when he could play out the same scenario endlessly and have countless virtual lives to risk? And just like that, we’ve got ‘em! They’ll be playing these games night and day, paying little attention to anything else. Even those that view this as a training exercise will be converted (or eliminated) upon reaching the level of “Martyr” and finding a promised land far from promising.

In one fell swoop, we have broken the cycle of violence. As new video games are created, they will be available for sale. That forces our young ex-warriors to get a job so 

they can purchase the latest and greatest versions. And, if we allow advertising on the new games, we further transform the would-be jihadist into a mainstream consumer! All of a sudden, we’ve created a whole new source of consumption hungry for the ways of the West and who better to provide that than the good old U.S. of A.

Other versions could be tailored for specific conflicts: Shia vs Sunni, Jew vs Palestinian, and the like with a slightly different reward for the top tier of video accomplishments. The point is to create a generation that is not focused on killing someone else simply because it is tradition. Then, future generations have a greater chance of a more normal life. 

This formula for peace may strike some as insane, unworkable, or perhaps even delusional, but is it any worse than relying on the same failed strategies of the past? While anyone would agree the approach is definitely “outside the box”, it might well provide a way out of the box we’ve been trapped in for too many generations.

Wagging the Dog

We've always referred to Major League Baseball players as "the boys of summer". Sadly, the boys have been replaced by old men in suits: the league officials and network execs. The coup has been gradual, but the national pastime is now subservient to those that manage and program.

Case in point: The New York Yankees are embroiled in a final push to win the AL East. Friday night's game was rained out, so a double-header was scheduled for Saturday. Now, one would think that the first game would start around 1:00 with the second game at its regularly scheduled time (7:00). The New York Times reported that the first game would begin at 4:00 and the second one at 9:00 to better coincide with the desires of Fox Sports. Screw the fans that would like to watch the game at a reasonable time and screw the players who now must deal with circadian rhythm disruption. It’s all about ad rates and programming and nothing about the game. “Big deal,” you think. “I hate the Yankees, anyway.” But chances are good that you enjoy some aspect of professional sports, don't you? If so, your sport of choice is being similarly bastardized to maximize the bottom line with nary a consideration for any other interested party.

The NFL is considering an 18 game season. Is that to bring us more football? Of course not: it is to provide more opportunity for spectator and television money to flow into the coffers. Never mind the health of the players. There's always some other schmuck to market as the next super-star. The major sports leagues currently overlap while exploring adding more games to an already bloated schedule. Even tennis players are complaining about the demands of a longer season and matches at inhuman times merely to cater to the almighty television network covering the event.

And when was the last time you took the family to a game? No longer a simple outing, is it? No, now it represents a major financial investment. So the stadium seats, if they are filled at all, are occupied by corporate clients and the like while most of the regular fans sit in front of their 53 inch wide-screen HDTV for a fraction of the cost and a better view of the game, to boot. All the more reason to concentrate on the network's priorities, perhaps, but at what cost?

The era of sports idolatry has come and gone. Steroids, doping, extramarital affairs, and other less-than-admirable activities have jaded the fan base to a point where any expectation of us showing up at weird hours to appease the powers-that-be is misplaced and overly optimistic. Add Tivo and DVRs to the mix and the true power of television timing starts to fade. Can a reduction in advertising revenue be far behind?

Remember when World Series games were played during the day so kids could watch? Remember when your sports idols weren't under clouds of suspicion for a host of mischievous deeds? Maybe its time to find other diversions that don't include the willing sacrifice of appreciable sums of money or blocks of time. Maybe its time for the dog to once again start wagging the tail.  

Theory vs Reality

There’s an old joke that tells of the young boy who asks his dad for help on a report describing the difference between theory and reality. His dad tells him to ask his mom and sister if they would sleep with a strange man for a million dollars. The son returns and tells his dad that both said yes. “So,” the Dad says, “in theory we’re millionaires, but in reality we’re living with a couple of whores.”

There is, and always has been, a wide gap between theory and reality, but we tend to lose sight of this all important difference as we look at the world around us. For instance:

THEORY: Banks are our friend.

REALITY: Banks want to make money and they use our money to do it by lending it to other people who need money. Unless, of course, the banks have invested in questionable assets that have lost value. Then, they hoard their money to protect themselves while we wither on the vine. Much like the current financial picture.

THEORY: Health insurance companies care about us.

REALITY: Health insurance companies care about us so long as we’re healthy. Once we become ill, though, they lose interest as they lose money paying our medical bills. The new law mandating coverage for children with pre-existing conditions has resulted in no new policies being written for sick children. The only way around this is to get a family policy and that will involve higher premiums.

THEORY: Complex decisions are made in a calm manner with little or no discussion.

REALITY: Complex decisions come out of input from many sources and generally involve bickering, belligerence, and cajoling. Much is being made of Bob Woodward’s new book in which he portrays the administration’s angst-filled discussions over the war in Afghanistan. Come on folks: a room full of high ranking politicians and military personnel is ripe for dissension when ordering a pizza! To think that decisions of this magnitude are made without discord is naive.

THEORY: One political party can solve our problems.

REALITY: Neither political party can solve our problems without cooperation from their counterparts on the other side of the aisle. This is called compromise and leads to progress. We are now experiencing partisanship personified where nothing is better than paralyzing the opponent’s agenda. And don’t think that it wouldn’t happen if the majority party was reversed.

THEORY: We want Washington (or our respective states) to quit spending money.

REALITY: We want Washington (or our respective states) to quit spending money on things that “we” don’t want or don’t use. All of those programs and projects that bring dollars to our doorstep? Keep ‘em coming! Just quit sending money to other doorsteps.

THEORY: We need independent politicians to solve our problems.

REALITY: There are no independent politicians. Republicans and Democrats rely on their respective “machines” to supply money and organization. That makes them beholden. Independently wealthy candidates, while seemingly insulated from party influences, have other agendas that may well be more dangerous than more traditional candidates.

THEORY: Our best days are behind us.

REALITY: With serious, adult leadership our best days are yet to come. It is time for smart folks to come together and strive to solve the monumental challenges facing us all. It matters not which party has a good idea or which politician will succeed or fail in a re-election bid. What matters is everyone pulling on the same oar at the same time. Of course, in light of the current political gridlock, you might well call this the greatest theory of all.

We Need to Talk

Richard Nixon spoke of the “silent majority” in 1969 when he sought support for the Vietnam war. I’d like to address my silent majority: those that take the time to drop in to my weekly column for a look-see or listen. I’ve been writing for almost 21 months and have scant comments from which to glean favor or opposition.

The site has almost 14,000 hits. Granted, some may have dropped in by mistake. Even if we discount a random 10%, that still leaves a significant number with nothing to say. My objective is to create some ensuing conversation or debate over the merits of my musings. A comment to congratulate or castigate would be much appreciated. How else can I know if I’m on to something? Or, perhaps, maybe I’m bumping along on a dead-end road. Either way, I’d sure like some input.

In this Twitter / Facebook oriented world, I’m hard-pressed to explain the dearth of opinions on my opinions. A friend of mine is a loyal reader and even she opted to send me a personal note rather than a comment for all to see. It contained high praise (I’ll spare you), but even if it hadn’t, the posting may have generated other comments. So come on: do ya like it or do ya hate it? Get involved...tell a friend...tell me!

Another regular reader has weighed in on my new podcast format and thinks that I should become more passionate in my speaking. After all, she wrote, I allude to a rant with my “resounding hell no” on the column’s home page. Point taken, but allow me to offer another angle.

There are two ways to burn a log. (Yes, I know there are more than two ways to burn a log just as there are more than two ways to skin a cat. Gimme a break here, OK?) You can turn a blowtorch on it and it will, indeed, burn. Until you take the flame away, that is. There is no internal heat created to maintain the combustion. Or you can introduce a smaller flame to the core of the log and wait until it catches hold. Then, when you remove the flame, the heat remains and the log continues to burn.

A rant is much like that blowtorch I mentioned. It gets the listener all worked up and feverish. A day later, though, as the rant in question fades from the mind, the fever fades, too. We see that on many talk radio and cable television programs.  Over-the-top theatrics designed to create a visceral reaction in the hopes of forming ideas based on emotion rather than intellect.

I’d rather my opinions be akin to the small flame in the middle of the log (you’re the log in this analogy, you know). I assume that most in the audience still have an ember or two of indignation somewhere deep inside and I strive to stoke that ember by speaking in reasonably temperate tones. I hope that my points will strike some sort of chord that will continue to resonate over time. I’m less interested in whether you agree or disagree with my position. If my words create a desire to look at things in a different way I’m a happy guy. So while my inflection may not approach the levels of more well-known personalities, I’d like to think that my ideas will have a longer life span within your memory bank.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I sure feel better after our little talk. I know it was a one-way chat, but all the more reason to submit a comment. Both column and podcast offerings provide an avenue to respond and I’m more than happy to engage. So take a minute and let me know you’re out there. And as the Bartles and Jaymes pitchmen were know to say: thank you for your support.