Who's Who?

It used to be that we could easily tell the good guys from the bad. Westerns always portrayed the evil-doers in black hats. Other genres in the “reel world” have used assorted physical characteristics so the audience could readily identify the forces of good and evil. The real world, though, is less than cooperative. Much has been made of civilian casualties on the battlefields of Iraq, Afghanistan, and, as of late, Libya. This disturbs many, including myself, but I can’t help but think my angst is of a different orientation. (What a surprise, huh?)

There was a time when wars were fought by armies clad in an appropriate uniform. This allowed any observer to distinguish friend from foe and civilian from soldier. The World Wars and Korea are probably the most recent examples. Viet Nam, on the other hand, was a guerilla war where our enemies wore no specific uniform and harbored no age or gender bias. Men, women, and children could well be an adversary. Not coincidentally, it became a conflict with no winner. The battles we are currently waging are eerily similar in that Iraqis, Afghans, or Libyan rebels are made up of folks in nondescript clothing. Is it any wonder that civilian casualties mount in such arenas?

And who’s to say the casualties are civilians? Couldn’t they just as easily be combatants? Perhaps it is to the benefit of one side to claim the other is shooting civilians when, in reality, no one may know for sure. I’d say civilian casualty claims in such encounters are made purely for publicity purposes. And, to make it worse, the US usually offers up an apology!

Look, when all hell breaks loose, the civilians hit the road or hunker down. If they choose to walk down Main Street at high noon as a gunfight is brewing, they should not be surprised when a bullet misses the intended target and finds them, instead. I’ll grant you that innocent bystanders sometimes fall prey to a stray bullet, but their choice of location puts them in harms way from the get-go. On the other hand, the individual deemed to be a civilian, i.e. non-combatant, could well have a trick (or weapon) up the sleeve. Can we really blame anyone for shooting first and asking questions later? 

Friendly fire is, unfortunately, a major problem in these current conflicts mainly because of the lack of a front. Everyone is running in every direction so it’s hard to tell an ally from an adversary. Ground fighting is hard enough; just think what it’s like from the air. Last week, Libyan rebels were inadvertently strafed by aircraft who thought they were firing on tanks from the pro-Libyan forces. True, the rebels had never before used tanks and now they are going to display a pink banner on all their vehicles to make identification easier. The unintentional support for breast cancer aside, I’d say Gaddafi’s forces will soon be sporting similar pink banners.

War is more than hell: it is horrific and the thought of innocent civilians getting caught up in the carnage should surprise no one. Likewise, some fighters are destined to be slain at the hand of fellow soldiers. I can think of no way to avoid these events and can think of no reason to gloss over them in the name of “civilized” combat. There is no such thing and the more repulsed the world becomes, the less the chance of future conflict.

Especially ironic is the fact that, once long ago, a rag-tag group of militia men took the fight to a highly organized, superior force. The militia wore nothing of note and hid behind trees and such while the enemy marched down the road. Such was the Revolutionary War and the result could not have been more decisive. Should it come as any surprise that our military forces, in full battle regalia, are being sorely tested by an outmanned, rag-tag bunch of fighters? Are you my friend or my foe? Oh, for the days of the black hat...

The Time of Our Life

Our life span is generally measured in years while the events that materially affect it take much less time to occur. Not months nor days nor hours nor even minutes. No, the times that truly describe our life take but a moment though they are responsible for the twists and turns we inevitably experience.

I’ve written in the past of “marking moments”. The moments I’m referring to today have a slightly different meaning. These moments are out of our control yet exert tremendous control over our futures. Winning a lottery, for instance. True, we played the numbers, but most of us waste little time hoping for our ship to come in. So, when that ship does come in, what a moment and, yes, it changes our life. We tend to consider such moments as golden ones, but the sadness in our past is privy to a moment, too. The death of a loved one may well be one of the  saddest moments imaginable. No, goodness has no exclusivity when it comes to the times in our life. And good or bad, these moments change the rest of our life, or at least a good portion of it.

"Big  deal," you  say. "So what?" The “deal” lies in the fact that, as I  stated earlier, we measure in longer time spans and, in so doing, miss the magnitude of these moments and the power they possess. The tsunami survivors in Japan have had their lives inalterably affected in the blink of an eye. Others involved in natural (or manmade) disasters have experienced similar episodes. Others, still, have averted similar fates by the merest of margins. Yup, another moment.

These moments significantly change the course of our lives and we need to accept their existence. Otherwise, we take our quiet, organized life for granted and cry, “Foul” when faced with the harsh reality of setback or failure. And conversely, events that may change our life for the better could well be short-lived. What I propose is that we take the time to recognize how frail life can be. Our moments will be both bitter and blissful, but they are the mile markers we use to describe ourselves. While we usually look to the calendar to keep track of time, a stopwatch may be more appropriate.

And finally, when it all comes to an end, we pass on in a moment that will inexorably change the lives of others. Moments, folks: they are what we are truly made of and they are what truly defines the times of our lives.

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.