Risky Business

While this question was central to an unforgettable scene from the “Marathon Man”, it remains central to many things going on about us. The nuclear reactors in Japan, our radiation monitoring systems, and sleepy air traffic controllers have made the news in the past week alone. The list could go on for a good while with one common thread: are we as safe as those “in the know” purport? The answer, on the other hand, is short and unsweetened: no.

Surprised? I can’t, for the life of me, understand why that might be. Think back to any household chore that involves power tools or ladders. Hopefully, before embarking on this simple task, a plan is thought out to ensure no broken bones or missing appendages at the completion of said project. Unfortunately, most plans have hidden flaws that arise at the most inopportune moment and sometime result in the very things we tried to prevent.

So the only difference between our foray onto the roof (and into the Emergency Room)and the more serious scenarios previously mentioned is the scope of the effort and the greater ramifications of those hidden flaws. How can one guarantee that a nuclear reactor and its surrounding area is absolutely safe? One can only plan for known problems using known construction techniques. Fast forward a few decades after new problems have been identified and new construction techniques have evolved. It’s too late to re-build our facility so the best we can do is continue whistling through the graveyard while employing some sort of stop-gap measures. The same applies to earthquake-proof buildings or anything else followed by “-proof” in the press release.

A few days ago, a controller fell asleep on duty at Washington’s Reagan Airport. He was the only one on duty despite concerns voiced by controllers and their union. Why? Because it was cheaper and, after all, nothing had happened like this before. So now we’ll have an investigation and put two controllers on duty for graveyard shifts. I can remember tales of flight crews going to sleep in the cockpit and overflying their destination. So much for multiple folks solving a problem, huh? No, nothing is absolutely safe and most of us realize this fact every morning as we climb out of bed. As soon as our feet hit the floor, we’re taking on some sort of risk. 

The nature of a disaster, be it natural or man-made, is bad enough, but insult is added to injury when our experts, CEO’s, and political leaders take to the podium to “reassure” us that all is under control. Why is it, then, that they seem to regularly tell us that yesterday was worse than thought while guaranteeing tomorrow to be better than today? And why do we listen? Well, we don’t seem to be listening with much attention as the credibility of those we look to for answers erodes. Yet they continue on, oblivious to the fact that their constituents can take hard truth and, in fact, prefer it over fanciful best-case scenarios that fail to materialize.

It was recently reported that almost half of the radiation monitors on the West Coast are not working. The EPA claims this is due to “quality review”. What the hell does that mean? At a time when radiation measurement is highly desirable, we continue to hear that all is well. Remember the old “Fool me once...” adage? (No, not the one W. mangled. The real one.) Somewhere in these speeches and forecasts lies truth and sensible avenues of recourse. How to separate the grains of wheat from the chaff, though, is the real challenge. And, as events become more complex, we realize that most of us aren’t smart enough to figure it out for ourselves. No, we’re still up on that roof with a broken (or missing) finger wishing we had anchored the ladder better. So maybe, we think, we’re better off not believing anything anybody says. It’s safer, right?

Whether or not we continue our nuclear power agenda or not, we must all realize that any great undertaking has risks that are in keeping with the rewards. A solution to the nuclear problem is elusive, to say the least. And convincing the powers-that-be that honesty is the best policy may be a pipe dream. Regarding the controller staffing, though, I can offer a way to avoid these lapses of consciousness: take that lone controller and give him a pair of safety glasses. Then put a carrion bird into the tower cab with him. Vultures and such are only interested in dead things so, should our controller nod off, the condor will start in on dinner. That should wake anyone up, assuming they could fall asleep in the first place! The glasses? Everyone knows that the eyes are usually the first course.

Legacies

I’ve been involved in aviation for over 40 years and, unfortunately, have seen friends and acquaintances within this arena meet their untimely end. It has not been unusual to hear of a fellow aviator “flying west”, but a rarity, indeed, to bid farewell to more than one at a time. Last month, two pilots I know from two very different areas of my aviation life were killed in a crash.

I was fortunate to have known both Chuck and Tyler, albeit in very dissimilar conditions. Chuck was a contemporary at the airline and I assisted him with union work in the late ’90’s. He was a bit senior to me so I never had the chance to fly with him, but always admired his commitment to making the profession better than when he found it. Tyler was a local pilot who I’ve known for the past ten years, or so. The crash that took his life coincided with his 25th birthday. He was probably the closest thing to a natural aviator as I’ve come across. He was flying well before his 16th birthday and, immediately upon turning that magical age that allows for solo flight, he soloed not one, but five different aircraft. Too many pilots, believing their own press releases, have been known to say, “I’ll fly it and the box it came in.” I can think of none other than Tyler who could thus boast and deliver upon it. I’m equally proud to say that he was far too modest to ever make such a claim.

The passing of these two at decidedly different points in their lives led me to think about their legacy. This is a term usually reserved to parents or celebrities of some sort and speaks to the void left by their absence. Neither Chuck nor Tyler were fathers. Nor did their demise warrant coverage (other than the crash) on any front page save for the local papers. Likewise, no other media source reported on their deaths in any detail. So much for a legacy, huh?

Contrary to this conventional wisdom, we all leave a footprint and, in passing, leave a lasting impression upon some of those with whom we have associated throughout our lives. We need not be famous nor wealthy nor a procreator. The only prerequisite is that we’ve lived to the best of our abilities and, in so doing, touched those around us. As such, both Chuck and Tyler leave a rich legacy to those that had the good fortune to know them in any capacity whatsoever.

I will always remember Chuck as dedicated and passionate. This fervor allowed him to question the status quo and be a catalyst for progress. I have no doubt that he carried this attitude into all aspects of his life and others are better for having known him.

Tyler was old beyond his years. His calm demeanor coupled with his unbridled love and commitment to aviation set him apart from most birdmen. While my aviation career has spanned more years than his, I’ve no doubt that Tyler had ventured into more aspects than I would have ever dreamed. He was the consummate aviator who will always serve as the epitome of excellence and devotion.

And so it is with each of us. We live our lives and interact with many through the course of our daily activities. Many remember us despite the fact that we may not recall them and some will be changed by the effect that we have upon them. At the very least, that is the legacy we each leave to humanity. Whether or not our passing is noted in publication or by a family left behind: our legacy lives on in those who remain. Perhaps it is best that we are unaware of its existence lest it affect our behavior. Regardless, let no one feel that a death leaves no void. My world is diminished with the loss of the two I’ve written of today. Nevertheless, in certain ways, I am their legacy as I live out my allotted days. And so it is with each of us...

What Are You?

It seems that most of us prefer short descriptives in categorizing our position on current events and the challenges they provide. You know: left, right, moderate. Or, if you prefer, Republican, Democrat, Independent. (Yes, I know I omitted the Tea Party. It is simply a faction of the Republican Party and can be found way over there on the right of the rest of the right.) Even “for” or “against” can be heard when offering a broad brush opinion. They all have one trait in common: they’re simple, short, and clear cut. The problem is that many of the issues before us today are anything but simple or short or clear.

So let’s take a short quiz to truly ascertain our priorities and political allegiances. Let’s start with the right to life: are you opposed to abortion rights and believe life is sacred? If so, how do you feel about capital punishment? How about gun control? Are you a member of the NRA and believe that guns don’t kill people, but only people kill people? If so, are you repulsed that a maniac can obtain a weapon capable of firing a large number of uninterrupted rounds and use it in a school?

If you support a free market system, I guess the latest spike in gas prices is causing you no angst nor financial pressure. We can all trust corporate America to provide safe and healthy products, can’t we? Who needs regulators and inspectors?  After all, they only stand in the way of a truly open market-based economy.

Do you want a smaller, less intrusive government and a balanced budget with no deficit? Are you ready to “adjust” your Medicare and Social Security privileges to achieve that goal? How about unemployment benefits or aid to dependent children? 

And what about all those bureaucracies, be they public or private? Surely we can pare them down a bit. But wait a minute...don’t most of us fill some sort of square within a corporate flow-chart? We’re necessary, though, aren’t we? They need our contribution, don’t they?

All of a sudden, that plain and simple description of our values gets a bit muddy, doesn’t it? As well it should. You see, many, if not most, of us move about the spectrum as the conversation changes. And sometimes we move even within a given topic. That’s because any issue at hand is much like a diamond. Or a lump of coal. Either has multiple facets and each can be flawless or seriously flawed. It all depends upon our perspective at that particular moment. To think that the world is simple is overly simplistic.

I’d say that our positions can be boiled down to two: the theoretical and the realistic. If we are not drawing unemployment benefits it is easy to say that those programs are needless. Once we lose our job, though, that theory gives way to the reality of our situation.

I suggest we use a more relaxed definition when attempting to pigeon-hole our position or anyone else’s. Me? I claim to be a social progressive and a fiscal conservative. And I know that my positions could well change depending on the realities I’m currently facing in my life. Now, some might call that schizophrenic. I prefer “complicated” and see it as more befitting in a world where nothing is as simple as we’d like.

Commercially Incorrect

We all know, to varying degrees, that some words and/or actions do not sit well in social situations. The “F” word, for example. Such language or behavior is referred to as politically incorrect. I would submit that recent events in the public arena have rendered some words as “commercially incorrect”. Specifically, the “U” word: union.

The Governor and a majority of state legislators in Wisconsin seem hell bent on crippling the unions representing public employees in the state. We’re not talking about mere concessions to mitigate a budget deficit. We’re talking about a unilateral dismantling of the right to engage in collective bargaining. Similar administrations in Africa and the Middle East are currently under fire for similar heavy handed activities. 

Those of you familiar with my opinions know that I’ve never understood why a labor union is characterized as the anti-Christ. Unions were formed to withstand imposed work rules, pay, and benefits on a group of workers with no say in their future. Never has a union been formed and then given rise to a company. Labor has always been reactive and always will.

The collective bargaining process so opposed in Wisconsin created contracts that both signatories knew were unsustainable. And both knew that they would both be sitting on a beach somewhere when the whole house of cards came crashing down. We’re all too familiar with similar dealings between labor and management within General Motors and this scenario is no different.

Are there successful companies with no unionized workforce? Of course. Just as there are successful companies with highly unionized employee groups. The credit goes to the corporate boardroom and the executives that accepted the facts as they are, not as they had hoped them to be. Are unions immune from graft and corruption at the upper levels? Of course not; no more so than corporate executives exposed to the same temptations. But at least the greed and corruption are more evenly distributed among all participants if a union is on the property. Ugly, I know, but we need to accept the nature of all beasts.

Many holding the reins of power lament that dealing with a union is laborious (no pun intended) and time consuming. Such  is the case when both sides of a debate are accorded an opinion. I imagine agricultural in the South was much easier when slaves provided the labor. Sad to say, but many of our corporate and political leaders lack that quality of “leadership” and simply want to travel the road of "my way or the highway" (pun intended) because it’s easier.  

Being a union member is not akin to receiving the keys to the kingdom. Most of my years as an airline pilot have been spent within the confines of a concessionary contract. To think that union membership is not fraught with reality checks and ensuing concessions is simply untrue. But to rob a group of employees, be they private or public, of their rights to bargain in good faith is the height of despotism and cannot be tolerated any more at home than abroad.

Some say that public employees should not have the right to strike. Federal employees are forbidden to withhold their services. The air traffic controllers found that out in the late 1980’s when they were fired for doing so by then-president Reagan. Ronnie was given all sorts of credit for busting the union, but all he did was enforce existing law. I cannot say that such a law covering a state’s employees is in order, but I do believe that such changes must occur, once again, through the avenues of bargaining.

And one more thing: where were the citizens of Wisconsin when such unsustainable contracts were being written? Watching TV? Listening to their favorite tunes? This detached kind of democratic government which does nothing until one’s personal ox is gored runs counter to what democracy really requires. We must remain engaged in the processes that ultimately affect us all. To single out a specific career field (teachers) and demonize their right to collectively bargain will surely come back to haunt us all. Many other states are watching so as to accurately gauge the level of resistance. In other words, your ox may well be next.

Oh, should Wisconsin really want to look into suspicious monopolies, perhaps they should take a closer look at the Fitzgerald combine: Scott leads the state Senate. His brother, Jeff, is Speaker of the state House. And their father, Stephen, was recently named the new chief of the State Troopers at the age of 68. Talk about a machine! It kinda makes a simple labor union look like small potatoes, doesn’t it?

Ball of Confusion

My head is spinning as events unfold around the globe at breakneck speed. The demonstrations against authoritarian governments in the Middle East and Africa continue to grow and seem ready to spread to China. Other countries untouched by such activity are nervous while wondering if they might be next. And here in the good old US of A the governor of Wisconsin seeks to stifle the bargaining rights of public employee unions under the guise of "reigning in costs". So, while we have folks in other countries revolting against years of tyranny, some in this country are fighting efforts to unilaterally rob them of their rights to negotiate pay and benefits.

There have been weeks when I've been hard pressed to find a suitable topic for this space. All of a sudden, I'm overwhelmed with competing themes as noteworthy stories flood the airwaves and front pages. What is to be made of this extraordinary confluence?

Perhaps it is nothing more than timing. After all, many have suffered under harsh regimes for decades. Now, though, the opportunity to communicate in cyberspace has stirred the embers of resistance into a new-found demand for change. No country seems to be immune as long-silent majorities find their voice and seek a fairer shake from their governments.

The idea that budgetary battles in Wisconsin could logically lead to stripping unions of their power has led to an unprecedented public backlash. True, contracts can always be renegotiated, but to suggest that teachers unions and other organizations representing public employees simply lose their rights to bargain invites such demonstrations. And rightfully so.

No entity is immune from public outcry in today's world of Twitter and Facebook and all their associated social sites. Coordination is as close as a text and such camaraderie creates a fervor not recently seen nor easily quashed. Whether we're talking of a foreign dictator or an elected representative within our borders, heavy handed behavior is no longer silently tolerated.

No one can predict what our world will look like in the next year nor who will be ruling countries currently in turmoil. It doesn't matter, though, because the bigger picture illustrates that all peoples, regardless of status or station, can exert a powerful force simply by speaking up. It also shows that those who have held a tight grip on power are generally reluctant to release it without a fight. Good lessons, to be sure, and ones which should not go unnoticed by those in this country attempting to wrest power from political foes by disguising their agendas as financial restraint.

Pick Your Poison

Last week a research study was released suggesting that diet soda contributes to heart disease. Yet the latest example of undesirable side effects. Red wine? Good for your heart, but your liver doesn't care for alcohol, does it? The Japanese diet apparently leads to low cholesterol, but many subscribers suffer from hypertension.

No, there's little, if any, out there in our dietetic cornucopia that has no deleterious effect. And if you think that's bad, let's leave the kitchen and wander into our bathroom's medicine cabinet. Here we find limitless examples of potions that, while treating one ailment, often create others.

If you take a statin drug for cholesterol you must also submit to periodic liver tests. That's because statins can raise hell with it. I took a statin for ten years at half dosage to combat what my doctor felt was high cholesterol. I thought the muscle pain I began to experience in my legs when climbing hills was simply old age creeping in, but then recognized it as a possible side effect of the drug. I stopped taking it for a week and, when the leg pain disappeared, the drug disappeared from my shelf. My cholesterol? 223, which is not too bad for a man of my age and a number that I'm willing to accept given the alternative.

I'm one of the lucky ones as I have, so far, escaped the need for other prescription drugs. Many are less fortunate and every drug out there has a side effect which, at the very least, provides the chance for yet another need for another drug. Allergies? Your prescription may cause swelling of the throat and difficulty in breathing. The ones that amaze me the most are those that fall under the "Erectile Dysfunction" category. They may cause nausea and headache. I don't know about you, but when I'm nauseous or a jackhammer is doing a number on my brain, the last thing on my mind is romance!

I'm not here to lecture on the dangers of drugs, but rather to illustrate how we must each become our own best advocate when choosing a given regimen suggested by our doctor (or dietician). Granted, some afflictions are so severe that any risk is acceptable. Others, though, are taken to mitigate minor irritations without so much as a consideration of the possible downside. Take a pill...be happy. Have a diet soda...lose weight.

Whether it be drugs or dining, everything that we ingest has an effect that we'd just as soon do without in addition to the desired benefit that we seek. It's a balancing act, to be sure, but one that demands a greater awareness and participation. Perhaps it can be best summed up by this advice given to me long ago: Moderation in everything (including moderation).

Dominoes

The events of the past few weeks are unprecedented in their scope or succession as country after country in the Middle East has ousted long-time rulers. Tunisia, Yemen, and now Egypt see unparalleled uprisings from their citizens who have decided anything is better than the status quo. This domino effect, if you will, must have some sort of common root that has finally tapped into long held resentment. What could it possibly be?

I submit that our seemingly innocuous social networks of Facebook and Twitter are primarily responsible for this phenomenon. Any repressive regime seeks to control the opportunity for its citizenry to communicate in unfettered ways. The fear of reprisals creates an atmosphere where most keep their hopes and aspirations (and frustrations) to themselves. It’s hard to limit such communication in cyberspace and I believe tweets and texts have created the catalyst which has led to almost overnight change within the halls of Mid-East power.

Other countries, in an apparent attempt to avoid similar social unrest, have taken steps to alter their structures. Jordan has fired their cabinet. Pakistan has down-sized theirs and now Iraq’s prime minister al-Maliki has stated that he will not seek re-election. I cannot believe that there is one nation in the region that is not busy trying to be more proactive.

This kind of change is messy, though, and no particular outcome is a certainty. First comes the demonstrations from those that have nothing. These demonstrations are nothing new and historically repressed. Once they begin to catch hold, though, those that have prospered under the current state of affairs take to the streets in support of its continued operation. Clashes ensue and the prospect of a civil war looms. We are seeing that in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities as the struggle continues.

Should despots be thrown from office, the vacuum that follows sometimes presents an environment worse than the previous one. Regardless, once that final straw has been laid upon the camel’s back, nothing else matters save the ousting of the individual seen as responsible for a country’s woes.

To make matters worse, other countries that have turned a blind eye to the dismal state of their allies' domestic affairs must now decide which devil to support: the one known (present) or unknown (future). Mubarak has been considered an ally of America in spite of the harsh tactics doled out to Egyptians. The US must now tread carefully while maintaining the foreign policy of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Or maybe not...

Maybe it is time to shun this practice of embracing such regimes in the name of some greater good. History shows that we usually suffer from such alliances. How about looking a bit farther down the road and recognizing foreign governments for what they are rather than what we want them to be. Providing foreign aid to a country that is essentially a dictatorship is nothing more than a shakedown in which US dollars are provided in return for a promise of political change at some future date. I think we can say that such extortion, while possibly providing a short-term profit, leads to long-term loss for stability and progress.

In the meantime, I find hope in that such seemingly mindless pursuits involving a "social network" have merit and meaning in a world sorely in need of public involvement.