Fault Lines

If we were somehow able to map out the differences that currently exist within our society I think it would closely resemble a depiction of California's seismic faults. Economic, religious, ethnic, and political differences have turned into divisions. What was once "us against them" is now "me against you" with "you" representing the rest of society. Our sense of community has devolved into a survival of the fittest mentality and that is bad for everyone.

While there's plenty of blame to go around, let's start with the individuals within our society. That's right: you and me. Regular readers know how I abhor labels as they tend to encourage us to draw premature conclusions. So, in lieu of Republican or Democrat, I'm going to use "left leaning" and "right leaning" (LL or RL). LL's tend to believe in a government, be it local, state or federal, providing a framework within which the public good is served. From law enforcement to infrastructure to programs that provide for the elderly, infirm, or needy, these entities rely on a tax structure so as to fund the various programs needed to carry out their respective missions. RL's, on the other hand, prefer to rely on their own wits, talent, and good fortune to make their own way in the world. Small government, low taxes, and few public assistance programs are their picture of a perfect world. And, as one moves from the middle of the political highway, the more strident and resistant to compromise they both become.

Economic standing, likewise creates division between the haves and have-nots. The haves are more often RL's as they are in little or no need of assistance from their government. They embrace the "if I made it, why can't you" ideology and use it to rationalize their reluctance to part with anything but the smallest possible portion of their accumulated wealth. LL's tend to be more sympathetic to those that have yet to find their way and accept the premise that blind luck sometimes plays a more important role than talent in eventual success. As such, they recognize society's need for a safety net.

Religious tenets add to the mix that serve only to divide us further. Christians, jews, muslims, or whatever: each promotes the notion that their way is the only way and others must be converted or treated as pariahs. No other cause has spilled as much blood throughout time and the world as religion. Yet, without it, we further lose sight of doing the right thing for all regardless of whether it is the right thing for us individually.

Much to divide us, wouldn't you say? So we look to our elected leaders to sort everything out and lead us to a tomorrow that is sunnier and more hopeful. Why? Our form of government is referred to as "representative". As such, our legislative bodies are but a reflection of the society as a whole. So, what with our deep divisions, how can we be surprised that our state and federal legislators are just as polarized? As if that wasn't enough, these folks seek a career out of their political aspirations and are pulled in diametrically opposed directions: doing what's best for the country may not be best for their constituents and that puts successful re-election at risk. Closing a military base, for instance, may be good for budget trimming, but closing the base in my district is terrible for my voters. Go close somebody else's base.

I think we can all agree that times are tough for most of us and perhaps that is why we, as a society, are seeking instant solutions from our political leaders. Polls show that popularity numbers for Congress and the President are all lower as well as our outlook for better days ahead. The problem, it seems to me, lies in this seismic fault line that refuses to budge. Movement, or compromise, in any direction seems out of the question until major forces build up to the point of crisis. The ensuing change is reckless and often cataclysmic in its unintended consequences. Is this a way for intelligent folks to go about solving problems? Apparently so, in light of recent gains by Tea Party politicos who take pride in their refusal to move from a position far on the political right. Combine a society of individuals concerned only about their personal needs and a government comprised of individuals seeking to please their voters by catering to those needs and we are left with a grid lock of seismic proportion.

The other type of fault line is that spoken by many of our elected officials who blame their opposites for the stale-mate. "It's not my fault, you know. If only my distinguished colleagues on the other side of the aisle would budge, we could all move forward." This fault-finding and finger-pointing only exacerbates an already untenable situation.

Should you have a question, I am a LL. While I believe that spending needs to be reined in, I also believe that a more equitable division of the tax burden is in order. But I don't believe the two must be addressed simultaneously. I believe that the tax structure is a priority today and the "readjustment" of social programs can wait until more of us are back on our feet. You don't take one crutch away from a cripple until the time comes when that cripple can manage with one. A slashing of established programs for the less fortunate at a time when they are most needed is inhumane, short-sighted, and caters to the visceral instincts that are all too common today. "Screw them...save me" should not be a goal we strive to attain.

Unplugged

Times are tough and many folks are out of work. Those remaining in the workforce are expected to do more and more with less and less. We refer to this as productivity and never before has it been as high. "At least I have job" is a statement we hear each day. But the quality of our work and the personal fulfillment it provides have fallen victim to this never-ending push for greater productivity. Why?

I'd say the root of this problem lies in the fact that our morale is suffering. But shouldn't our morale be high if we're grateful to have a job? One might think, but such linear thinking loses its strength within the human equation. And, to make matters worse, there is no column on any corporate spread sheet where we can quantify employee morale. We also find labor on the cost side of the ledger when, in fact, these folks are the one ultimately responsible for the success of a company. As a result, those we look to for leadership and inspiration come to see us as impediments to greater riches.

While there is a specific area of our economy called the "service industry", I would submit that all enterprises provide a service of some sort, be it directly providing something to the end user or making a box that holds a product. If you have a customer, you're in the service industry, at least for the purposes of this discussion. Additionally, if you are responsible for even one employee, you are a manager. You may not be thought of as management, but your underling's morale is highly dependent on how you approach your responsibilities.

OK, so how have we gotten to the point of higher effort with less satisfaction. Those that control our work environment have become disconnected, unplugged if you will, with what it is like to be down in the trenches. The pressures from their bosses, who are similarly unplugged, are transferred to the next lower rung on the corporate ladder. As Stephen King so aptly called it in his Dark Tower series, they have forgotten the face of their father.

This disconnect leads to a feeling of under-appreciation and directly impacts what we do and how we do it. I'd say most of us routinely give 150% to our jobs when we feel good about what we do. In a less than ideal workplace that number falls off to a level closer to 100%. True, we are still operating at a high level, but the difference is noticeable. And with an unplugged supervisor, the expectations increase even more. "The beatings will continue until morale improves" is a motto most of us are familiar with and, while the worker bees laugh at such sentiment, the higher-ups find it quite logical.

Unfortunately, there's not much the recipients of such corporate mentality can do about changing the culture they're trapped within. What is needed is an illuminated management team that recognizes the value within the workforce and seeks ways to maximize its potential. Does that come down to higher wages? Although pay may be an important part of the puzzle, other, less expensive, methods exist that can equally raise morale and, subsequently, success for all involved.

Perhaps the most notable example, within the airline industry at least, is Herb Kelleher of Southwest Airlines. Herb ran that show for a good while and was once asked how he kept his customers happy. "I don't worry about my customers," he replied. "I worry about my employees and they take care of the customers." Now Southwest is a highly unionized airline so don't start talking about how such success is impossible under such circumstances. Herb simply understood how to treat his employees so they would excel. I think that he also accepted the reality of unions and decided to work with them instead of against. This approach has created a consistently successful company. Is this example exclusive to the airline industry? Of course not. All that is needed is a manager who fully recognizes what is required to get the most from his subordinates.

"Well, when the economy turns around, things will improve, you know." No, I don't know that nor am I hopeful that an epiphany will strike the boardrooms of America and usher in a new era of enlightenment. What might happen, though, is an epidemic of "take this job and shove it-itis" that results in an exodus from companies that remain unplugged to those with a better appreciation for the value of their employees and a resultant increase in their morale. Time alone will tell if our managers come to realize that spending a few pennies on their charges pays off handsomely in dollars.

In the meantime, it is important to try and find a ray of sunshine in every workday amid the environment provided by your bosses. Do it not for them or their bottom line: do it for yourself and your family. For your sanity, too. After all, at the end of the day, it all comes down to you and the person in the mirror.

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.