Marking Moments

New Year’s Day has come and gone and now comes the task of returning to normal, everyday life. Many have said that this past year (or perhaps the entire decade) is best forgotten. I’d be hard pressed to argue that major social and economic upheavals have not touched everyone in some way, but throwing an entire period away is akin to tossing out the baby with the bath water.

Think a minute and recall the times of unparalleled joy in the last year. We’ve all had them, you know, whether they be of the personal or professional genre. We’re not very good at marking our moments anymore, though. Is it because our fast-paced life style has us looking at the next square before enjoying the one we’re currently occupying?

I’m not suggesting we wallow in some hazy-focused memory of better times. But if we fail to take the time to mark the moments that define us, we lose perspective for what is yet to come. And don’t confuse me with the eternal optimist, either. Those that know me would propose that I’m something less than Little Mary Sunshine and that’s fine with me. After all, a pessimist is nothing more than an optimist with experience.

Think of your life as a series of chapters, if you will. We each find ourselves at the close of a chapter from time to time. Sometimes this end-of-phase is completely out of our control. Death or down-sizing, to name two. Others, fortunately, can be more easily foreseen and afford the opportunity to soak in the final days of the enterprise. I am entering the last year of my airline aviation career. Knowing that my time is reasonably short, I will mark many moments over the next twelve months. Some will be good and others less-than-pleasant. Regardless, each marked moment will be available for my recollection after my participation has ceased. And what better way to relive the glory while keeping in mind the shortfalls and frustrations that ultimately accompany any endeavor.

  

Without our marking of important passages, including both good and bad, we can easily slide into thinking that things were better than they actually were.This leads us into second-guessing our decision (if one was involved) to close the chapter. And that takes time away from looking to the future and the possibilities it holds. To simply discard a year (or decade) out of hand is a disservice to the accomplishments throughout the period and to the moments that deserve remembrance. It’s not too late to reflect over the past year (or decade) and sift out those nuggets. And it’s not too soon to resolve marking future moments as they present themselves. It may well be the best resolution of the new year. 

To the Dogs

“To the Dogs” is a phrase usually reserved to describe a continually eroding situation. The economy is going to the dogs as is that abandoned building across the street. Today, however, I use the phrase as a salute to our canine companions.

Of all the domesticated critters, the dog occupies the highest rung on the ladder of loyalty. And for good reason. Beat a dog, make a dog sleep in the cold and wet, expect unreasonable behaviors: it matters not for the tail continues to wag in a never-ending display of unconditional love.

Dogs provide an opportunity for each of us to grow as humans if only we observe and adapt our ways to more closely mirror theirs. Take joy in a walk with a friend. Discover the pleasure of an afternoon nap. Live in the moment. Forget your ego. I’ll grant you that some of these are not possible in a hectic, 24/7 schedule. It’s just as good, perhaps, to keep the ideas in the back of our minds and take advantage of one when the opportunity arises.

Some are now thinking, “Yeah, well you haven’t had the experience that I’ve had with a dog.” Yes, many have been bitten (hopefully no more than once to at least prove the old adage). Think of other scenarios that have turned out badly. I’d say that many of them involve another person. Have you similarly shunned the human race? I doubt it, but cannot argue that some dogs pose a significant obstacle to the kind of relationship I describe. Not impossible, though.

You see, dogs are easier to rehabilitate. One need look no further than those associated with Michael Vick’s dog fighting operation. These were canines trained to kill another of their kind yet all 49 are now in foster homes with other dogs and, in some cases, children. Exceptional therapists? I’d be more inclined to point to an exceptional attitude and underlying desire to please within the patient.

No, dogs are there through thick and thin. Stop feeding them and they’ll sit at your door waiting for a scrap or a pat of some kind. Dogs will meet your gaze and return it with some sort of comprehension and the assurance that they will always remain true. Dogs will interrupt their nap to sit at your side. They revel in your happiness and sit quietly to comfort you in times of sadness.

I’ve had the pleasure of a dog’s company for over half of my life and am presently surrounded by three. Each has a different personality, but they all share the same devotion found lacking in our human world. No hidden agenda or secret goal. A simple, unadulterated admiration. If only we could attain such an altruistic height.

Dogs come in all shapes and sizes and each breed has unique traits. I’d say that is to provide a plethora of choices for would-be owners. Rescue operations even place dogs in a home on a trial basis to ensure a good fit. Not even allergies can eliminate a dog from your life as some breeds are hypoallergenic.

 I know, lifestyle and other such considerations are used to rationalize the absence of a canine from any household. There’s always a way. We can even skirt public laws by designating our dogs as “assistance” or “therapy” animals thus allowing access to otherwise off-limits venues. (I’m thinking of getting an assistance coat for one of my guys and telling folks I’m allergic to B.S. Soon afterward I can say, “Oops, he’s alerting me that I’m near B.S. and I must excuse myself!”)

The only thing a dog asks in return for undivided attention and unquestionable loyalty is to be spared from the pain of disease or old age. It seems that few dogs die naturally. They find a way to hang on one more day. I’d like to think it is out of allegiance to their human companions. Regardless, it falls to us all too often to make the final decision and bring a magnificent life to a peaceful end. It is never easy and subsequent passings are no easier, but it is the most noble thing we can do for our beloved canines.

Trust me: a relationship with a good dog cannot be duplicated in any other relationship with any other living thing. And within even the most cantankerous or mistreated canine is a “good dog”. So raise your glass and join me in a toast: To the dogs!

Baby, It's Cold Outside!

We are fully into the season where those that debunk any and all global warming theories cry, “Al Gore, where are you?” Record low temperatures or massive blizzards bring out the nay-sayers every winter claiming proof positive that global warming is a hoax.

Allow me a moment to digress and refresh the memories of these ill-informed folks: global warming does not necessarily coincide with higher temperatures. Rather, the term is used to illustrate a shift in weather patterns brought on by a higher than normal temperature of our planet. The severity of weather patterns is the hallmark of this condition, not the actual outside temperature. As such, record highs are also recorded, but we don’t hear Al Gore’s name invoked when talking about them, do we?

OK, back to the matter at hand. Nature has thrown much at the world over the past year: earthquakes, blizzards, floods, volcanoes, record setting hot and cold spells, you name it. For an in-depth look at some of these, drop by this Yahoo News link. I realize, by the way, that earthquakes and eruptions are not necessarily tied to the global warming scenario, but they have nevertheless added to the meteorological magnitudes reached over the past twelve months.

I do not claim to have an answer that would solve our global warming concerns save those that have already been proposed. But the fact that many still refuse to accept the premise as viable is beyond me. Most are highly educated people that must be placing a higher priority on politics and cash flow than the general well-being of our planet. This is nothing new, you know. We generally refer to such behavior as “kicking the can down the road”. After all, today’s officials will be long gone before the chickens come home to roost in measurable numbers, so why rock the boat? Let someone else handle it. We’ve seen similar mentalities in recent financial fiascos. Others argue that climate change is nothing new and they’re absolutely correct. I doubt, however, that mankind would take kindly to a new ice age or eternal tropical storms.

So, to you believers out there: don’t let anyone get away with the “where’s AL Gore now that we’re freezing to death?” ploy. It is an argument firmly rooted in ignorance and deserves a rebuttal at the earliest opportunity. Although I doubt a head-in-the-sand denier would be dropping by for a dose of my editorial elixir, just in case one stumbles in: come on...you know that, on some level, society’s way of life is screwing up the ecological balance that we depend upon for life, comfort, and sustainability. At least own up to the fact regardless of any changes you may make in your day to day lifestyle.

They say that admitting the problem is the biggest step to solving it. Let’s all hope that society can look itself in the mirror, accept the fact of a warmer globe, and get to the business of making our carbon footprints a bit smaller. And soon.

Laws R Us

A good friend and I were chatting the other day and commiserating over how we are pretty much burned out over Christmas well before the holiday comes around. Yuletide shopping displays can be seen shortly after Halloween, radio stations start playing carols the day after Thanksgiving, and some folks leave their Christmas lights up all year round. My friend said, “There oughta be a law!” and we started thinking of other insanities that should be banned: marriage before thirty, for instance, or having children without passing a test, and so forth.

Upon further reflection, though, it occurred to me that the last thing we need is more laws. After all, a law is passed, unintended consequences arise, and another law is passed to correct the deficiencies of the first. And so on and so on. The next thing we know, our legislative acts represent a burdensome and intrusive government. Sound familiar?

There are many facets of our society that require regulation from the feds. Others can be handled by governors or mayors. Many are warranted as they protect innocent members of society from those bent on mayhem. Others as a deterrent for those possessing something less than a full deck engaging in foolish behavior. But a seemingly overwhelming number are created simply because we, the people, want someone else to take care of things. Helmet laws, child safety seat laws, seat belt laws, cell phones while driving laws, no smoking laws. The list is long and sure to grow longer.

Wouldn’t it be better if we, the people, stepped up to the plate and took some responsibility for ourselves, our children, and those around us? On some level, we all realize the benefits from using seat belts or child seats. We accept the fact that second hand smoke is something less than healthy and texting while driving leads to traffic mishaps. Why, then, do we need a law?

I know: the “other guy” who never seems to behave in a manner deemed appropriate. This opinion is the ultimate in selfishness. If the other guy is getting away with something ill-advised, then why shouldn’t I be able to do the same? Yeah, I know it’s unsafe, but he’s doing it. This “why not me” attitude leads to many laws that we could do without if only we took some personal responsibility for our actions.

That’s a tall order these days, though, isn’t it? Who’s got time for that? It’s far easier to pass a law and then rely on our constabularies to deal with the scofflaws while we get back to the serious business of reality TV and the like. Where does it end? Or, better yet, does it ever end?

Will we have a law mandating the beginning of the Christmas season? Or outlawing marriage until an age where hormones don’t trump reason? Or issuing childbirth licenses? Probably not. Or at least I hope not. Rather, I’d hope for a society that ignores Christmas marketing until after the Thanksgiving indigestion has subsided. Or delaying a marriage until all factors have been considered. Or accepting the fact that the desire to have a child is not the same as the means. I think it’s called accountability and we’d go a long way to minimizing new legislation if we just took the time to do the right thing instead of the easy one.

The End of the Stone Age

Much has been written and spoken about the recent WikiLeaks release of “sensitive” diplomatic material. I have no interest in covering ground that has already been plowed so will offer thoughts that, so far as I know, have gone unexplored.

It seems that the bulk of this latest “leak” consists of personal opinions held by U.S. diplomats regarding other diplomats from other countries around the world. I am shocked that others are shocked. Most of us hold two opinions of folks: the public, politically correct one, and the personal, more earthy one. We generally rely on the latter only when employing the spoken word to avoid the embarrassment of having a written opinion come back to bite us in the butt.

Why would we think that the diplomatic corps and others within the halls of political power would be any different? In fact, I can see why this group would be more prone to dual opinions due to the nature of those they are forced to deal with while wearing a smile. I am mystified, though, as to why supposedly well-educated officials chose to include their real feelings in electronic communiques. The only explanation lies in the hubris that most, if not all, high ranking politicos possess. I’d say that Richard Nixon started the ball rolling by recording the nefarious deeds that occurred during his White House tenure. From tape recorders to open microphones to “off-camera” remarks with the cameras rolling: the examples are abundant. 

We are now hearing from administration officials that these leaked papers have seriously damaged any and all diplomatic efforts. Is there any doubt that foreign officials hold similar dual opinions as ours apparently do? The only difference is the recent exposure of our innermost feelings and you can bet that maximum hay will be made by those across the table in future talks. Other than that, though, little has changed.

Throughout all political and corporate dealings similar opinions run under the surface of more civil discussions. No one should be surprised at this. To document these opinions, though, is simply setting the stage for the future requirement of damage control.  WikiLeaks promises more information from the corporate boardrooms that conduct and condone skullduggery with even more harmful effects. And who will be surprised at these discoveries?

Rather than focus on the shortsightedness of those putting their personal opinions down on paper, we are asked to look at Army Private Bradley Manning and the WikiLeaks founder, Julian Assange, for crossing the line and behaving in an irresponsible manner. Don’t buy into this. Their actions, I believe, center around feelings of the world spinning out of control under a heavy influence of double talk and obfuscation of reality. I believe their acts represent an attempt to change the course of our foreign relations because more normal avenues have resulted in little or no alterations.

Can we ever hope to eliminate opinions of the heart? No. Can we hope to align them with our public perception of those with whom we are forced to negotiate? Probably not. I would have hoped, though, that our officials would have simply shrugged as if to say, “Yeah, so we think those guys are idiots. They think we’re idiots, too.”  Either way, we must come to terms with the fact that we all live in a glass house these days and the time for casting stones has passed. At least to the extent of resisting the urge to document our darker sides on the electronic version of a bathroom wall.

Who's Your Daddy?

It’s hard to find any facet of today’s life that lacks a sponsor. The sporting world is rife with patches and logos galore. Even highlights and statistics updates have some corporate name associated with each tidbit. Arenas have corporate sponsors that gain the right to add their name to that particular venue. No, advertising seems to be central to our daily way of life and no one seems to be immune from the temptation of receiving large sums of money in return for proudly displaying the names of corporate sponsors. Except one: politics.

Why is it that those who receive large contributions from specific industries are averse to publicizing the association? Could it be that, if we knew of the association, we might be averse to supporting that particular politico? Would we support a sports team if they played in “Pharmaceutical Park” or “Bankers’ Arena”? Probably not as enthusiastically, perhaps. And that is why politicians avoid naming their “sponsors”. Many of them would likely leave a bad taste in the electorate’s mouth. And that is exactly the reason why we should press for some way to identify who’s paying the bills for our representatives.

How about requiring each elected representative to wear lapel pins representing his top three donors. Perhaps an oil derrick for the oil industry or a band aid for healthcare providers or a snake for the lawyer lobby. We could think up some good ones, I’d say, and then we could all look at our guys and gals and tell immediately who’s in bed with whom. Radio and print would be required to add voiceovers or captions to identify the top three, too. “Joe Doaks, Congressman, East Carolina, Tobacco/Mining/NRA” as an example. Granted, some may find those sponsors likable and that’s OK, too. The point is that each voter will be able to instantly approve or disapprove of their representatives choice of friends and react accordingly.

Don’t expect this idea to get a warm reception in the halls of political power. Most elected officials prefer the perception of independence from special interest groups while accepting donations from the very same folks. And those “folks” much prefer the anonymity, too, so as to appear interested in an even playing field while ponying up big bucks for access and influence. Sorry, but the independent politician is extinct in today’s system. It takes big bucks to run for office and those bucks come from somewhere. And as soon as the first dollar is accepted, independence walks right out the front door.

There is an additional, perhaps greater, benefit to this proposal: since no donor would want to appear on the lapel of a supposedly unbiased official, most groups would seek to be number four or lower on the list of contributors. This means that contributions would start to decline in search of that lower tier and, as soon as number four became number three, the cash flow would be further reduced. Over time, the coffers begin to dry up and the next thing you know, public financing of campaigns is readily adopted by all seeking a seat at the public service table. And then, maybe, we may be able to once again elect truly independent candidates.

We know what sponsors are bringing us our television, newspaper, sports, and just about everything else. Isn’t it time that we are equally aware of who’s bringing us our politicians and the laws they endorse? I think so. If you do, too, send this on to someone  else. That’s how grass roots efforts get started, you know.

What Next?

“You know the drill: spread ‘em!” An outtake from a popular cop show? No, the phrase now heard at airports around the country spoken by any one of the innumerable TSA screeners. Regular readers know my feelings regarding this agency and I will try to avoid redundancy as I address this latest affront to the traveling public.

First, let’s look at what we know. The TSA  (no, it does not stand for Thousands Standing Around, but I must admit it would be appropriate) is tasked with creating the image of providing meaningful security. To think that this assemblage is comprised of experienced security professionals is laughable. One look no further than their on-line application to see how low the standards are. I’d be surprised if much difference was found between this application and those from fast-food chains. Suffice it to say that your screener is more than likely nothing more than a clerk: one who knows nothing more than policy, if that, and cannot see any shades of gray while exercising the duties of the job.

We also know the TSA is reactive rather than proactive. They started looking at our shoes after the shoe bomber. They limited our liquids to three ounces after the London plot was exposed. And now they seek to examine our unmentionables almost a year after the underwear bomber. In other words, they are protecting us from yesterday’s dangers with nary a look at what might happen tomorrow. Now, since the cargo plane scheme, print cartridges are outlawed. I find the mentality as simplistic as Whack-A-Mole. They keep looking at the last hole rather than getting ready for the head to appear in a different location.

That about sums up what we know about the TSA, doesn’t it? A group of inexperienced folks strictly following procedures while looking for old dangers. The new procedure that has caused such an uproar is only the latest in a series of steps that accomplish little more than adding another layer of paint on a façade. And what a procedure it is. You’ve got to admit, though, that at least you’re given a choice: submit to a naked photo session or allow a stranger to grope you. Boy oh boy, where do I sign up?

Now here’s what we don’t know: will the traveling public finally say they’ve had it with the poking and prodding or will they meekly submit to yet further intrusion? Will they endure the pat-down so as to attain a greater good or will they surrender to the more timely radioactive picture of their nether regions? Will they demand adherence to the 4th Amendment or acquiesce in the name of homeland security? So far, the reaction gives me hope that we have, indeed, reached the limit, but my only fear is that the indignation will wane in the name of expediency. The idea of an opt-out day just prior to Thanksgiving is admirable, but the opting-out decision must become a daily philosophy if we are to have any hope that this procedure will be amended or rescinded. 

Day in and day out, we must choose a pat-down in a private area. The TSA doesn’t want you to opt out in favor of the pat down because it takes longer and requires more personnel. Add the request for a private pat down and the need for both time and people are amplified. And when requesting the private pat down, keep one more thing in mind: the private session will have an additional person in the room. This person is another TSA representative to make sure there are no liberties taken. Well, what about a passenger representative? I’d suggest taking a friend in with you to back up your side of the story if anything seems untoward. You can bet that the two TSA types will provide cover for each other, leaving you out in the cold. No, take a friend/witness of some sort. Yes, it will take longer and yes, the delays may seem eternal. But only then will the process change.

In the meantime, we may hear requests for patience as procedures are “tweaked”. Don’t believe it for a minute. If you reconsider and agree to submit to the “simple scan” you can be assured that change will be further delayed. We’ve got to stay the course until sanity returns to our airport security process. You may also consider writing to airlines and airports of choice and telling them that your travel plans will not include flying until such time that these onerous procedures are eliminated. It will add to the pressure needed for the TSA to alter their approach..

This is truly a grass roots effort as the higher-ups have no real desire to change procedures they have put into action. We’ve all heard the “take back our country” campaign slogans leading up to the election earlier this month. How about taking back our airports? Perhaps we can create a TSA that bases its screening on current threats while using additional techniques seen in countries around the world. It would cost more to obtain the services of true security professionals, but I can’t help but think that air travel might once again become somewhat of a pleasurable experience. And wouldn’t that be money well spent?