Commitment

It has been said that marriage and insanity have at least one thing in common: commitment. So why not spend a few minutes in exploring both phenomena. Marriage entails many more relationships than between two individuals. Employees are married to their employers, for instance, in that both need the other to exist and thrive. Similarly, our government needs constituents to function. So why is so much time spent to alienate the very folks needed the most?

Let’s start with the latest example of corporate dysfunction: the NBA. So far as we can tell, the owners are bad businesspeople and can’t make a profit. And the players, thought to be overpaid and molly-coddled, want more, too. So the lockout threatens the financial futures of all involved. The NFL is similarly embroiled in a contractual dispute. While professional athletes contribute mightily to the astronomical cash flows that their teams enjoy, their skill set is limited. As such, they’re in a tough spot seeking ever higher salaries for a job that is viewed as non-essential to our everyday life. And the owners, while perhaps enjoying other revenue streams, stand to lose, too.

The political polarization we see at just about every level of government also serves no productive purpose. Much like fiddling while Rome burns, both sides of the Congressional aisle flirt with disaster in delaying a solution to the raising of the national debt limit. Should the worst-case scenario come to pass, most, if not all, citizens will be affected. And they will take their wrath out on their elected representatives. Once again, everybody loses.

Negotiating has taken on a new cachet where no-blink, high stakes poker has replaced meaningful dialogue with a pragmatic realization that each side has much to lose. Historically, in such scenarios, a compromise where neither side is overjoyed yet finds some sunshine amid the clouds was to be expected. Today, though, we’re all in vehicles playing chicken with oncoming traffic. And that, I’d say, is insane.

Most of us know that such obstinacy in a domestic setting leads to certain disaster. Why then, do we refuse to acknowledge the same danger in the corporate or political arena? I’d suggest it’s due to the lack of commitment when it comes to matters outside the home. We hear “take this job and shove it”, but have you ever heard the same philosophy in personal relationships? True, at the end of a hopeless coupling words to that effect are said with great feeling, but no one says it earlier except in an attempt to speed up the arrival of that ill-fated day. But we hear it regularly elsewhere.

Perhaps if we added a pinch of commitment to our commercial and legislative dealings things would progress more smoothly. Perhaps, if we saw the bigger picture, including those dependent upon our best effort, would we move from the far corner to a point closer to the center of the room. Perhaps, if we got over ourselves, the glimmer of hope might grow into a flame. There are times when compromise is fruitless and discretion is no longer the better part of valor. But these times come upon reaching the end game. What we see now is an opening position of intransigence and no one is served by that behavior.

One need look no further than those that signed the Declaration of Independence: five were captured by the British and tortured before they died. Twelve lost their homes to looting and arson. Two lost sons in the Revolutionary army and two more had their sons captured. Nine fought and died in the Revolutionary War. These were men who saw the greater picture. They committed themselves to an ideal and suffered great personal loss as a result. Was their effort in vain?

Isn’t it time to refocus on a more distant point and find ways to recapture the spirit that brought us so far and so well? Shouldn’t CEO’s look beyond quarterly results? Shouldn’t politicians disregard lobbyists? How about recommitting to the relationship held between bosses and worker bees, representatives and constituents. And what better time than the 4th of July?

Watching the Pot

President Obama’s announcement this week of a “draw-down” in Afghanistan forces has resulted in a vigorous debate. Too few? Too many? Too soon? Too late? Take your pick...there’s always room for one more.

To call this conflict a war is appropriate, but it is a reflection of what a 21st century war is and is not. This war is not a disagreement with a country and its population. It is a battle with those that owe no allegiance to any particular sovereign state. The enemy wears no uniform and can be found moving about within a given country as well as across neighboring borders or beyond. Unlike most of its predecessors, this war is without boundaries or easily identifiable foes. As such, I do not think it is a war that can be “won”.

Those that we are fighting in Afghanistan, be they Taliban or al Qaida or some other hostile group, are adept at running away so they can live to fight another day. After all, their battle has stretched over eons and a mere ten years for us is but a blip on their timeline. They will shoot and run or perhaps even suspend their fight until the force du jour decides to “draw-down”. Then, when the coast is decidedly clearer, they will re-emerge to continue their quest for dominion.

So how does one “win” such a war? They don’t. The Russians found that out as we are today and precious lives are being risked and lost while we search for a “winning” strategy. Marketing, in other words. Is it so important that the US can declare victory while extricating itself from a hapless situation? Apparently so, at least to those that lead.

We’ve all learned that a watched pot never boils. Drawing a rough parallel, I have no doubt that violence will return to the streets of every Afghan community once US forces vacate them. Are the Afghanis lawless and inherently violent? Probably not, but they are a collection of sects and tribes that do not recognize a central government. Left to their own, historic devices who can be surprised that they will return to what they know? And we simply cannot afford the dollars and personnel to keep a close watch on them.

So let’s agree that, regardless of specific numbers and dates, the sooner is, by far, the better. Chaos will once again reign with only a question of when yet to be decided. And while we draw-down our forces in Afghanistan, how about taking a look at our commitments in other, less volatile countries. Germany, for instance, or Japan or Korea. These are pots that have long since cooled and pose little or threat of boiling over. And modern warfare strategies make the past practice of standing guard on a given line obsolete. It seems to me that our presence provides more economic support than strategic and, if so, let’s bring some more troops back home from less hostile climes.

Einstein opined that insanity is no more than doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results. Our current involvement in a country that has endured centuries of invasion and conflict is a perfect example. Right or wrong, we ain’t gonna win this thing no matter how distorted the definition. There are those that will speak of strategic advantage or long term stability in support of maintaining a presence. Mere code words, I’d say, for staying a course littered with hidden agendas and lost lives. 

Wave Action

Over the years, some have called me a wave maker. Others have labeled me a trouble maker. And others, still, prefer the term “shit disturber”. Take your pick: they all apply depending on one’s point of view and the specific circumstance surrounding my participation. Let’s be clear, though: I do not go out of my way to find trouble or to make trouble for its own sake. What I do, though, is raise the BS flag when I am in a situation that attempts to exploit unreasonable amounts of patience or understanding on my part. 

I’m fully prepared for undesirable monikers from those that would rather I stand quietly and wait my turn at the whipping post and such a threat does not deter me from attempting to right a negative experience. Hence my question. “What’s wrong with making waves?”

Have you ever visited a pond in mid-summer? The water is a virtual mirror as the surroundings are perfectly reflected in its stillness. A thin sheen (usually green) lies over the entire expanse as various midges and such fly lazily above. The odds of finding a fish or any other viable creature under the surface are small because the water is more or less stagnant. And a sip? Are you kidding me?

Now, compare our pond with the ocean. Churning, foaming, vibrant. Abundant life and, yes, the potential for danger. We can back off a bit, though, to a stream fed lake, for instance. The presence of a current makes for less stagnation and more vitality. And we can confirm the current’s existence by noticing the waves upon the surface.

Just as waves upon the water lead to a greater degree of vibrance, the waves we make as we venture into the daily stream of events contribute to a better environment for everyone. With few exceptions, every opinion expressed in this weekly offering or the chapters in my book urge the reader to become more active in the outcome of various and sundry events. This activity is simply the making of a wave. And, once again, what’s wrong with that?

Well, the keepers of the status quo find something wrong with that because waves create a degree of turbulence and they would just as soon keep everything humming along with nary a ripple. The absence of waves ensures continued job security and the cash flow it provides. Once we start questioning the why’s and how’s no one can predict what fallout may occur. Not coincidentally, these believers of the status quo are generally a good bit farther up the food chain than most worker bees. “Oh, well,” they sigh. “That’s the way it goes, I guess.”

The problem lies in the fact that the worker bees start sighing the same lament and that’s when any hope for progress is extinguished. No questions...no comments...no waves. Not even a ripple. Life goes on, uninterrupted and unimproved.

This leads me to one last question for the week. When’s the last time you made a wave? Any kind will do: a comment or complaint to a manager, a question over a policy that makes no sense, a letter to an elected representative. Pick any day in the last week and try to find one that did not offer at least one opportunity to say something that you felt needed saying. I’d bet that you can’t and good for you if you spoke up. But many do not. I can offer no sensible explanation, but can’t help but think that they prefer the stillness of our stagnant pond than the rougher waters of the lake or ocean. Lazy? I don’t think so. Maybe indifferent or seeing no benefit in speaking up. It doesn’t matter, though, because the silence has nothing but negative implication where the roar represents the possibility of improvement.

Sometimes I wonder why I continue to send my musings into cyberspace for your review. Nothing seems to be changing so why spin my wheels? Some call me a pessimist and I would be hard pressed to argue, but I do remain hopeful. A hopeful pessimist? Yes, there is a distinct difference between the two and I fully intend to discuss the dichotomy in an upcoming piece.

In the meantime, throw a stick out into the middle of that stagnant pond and watch the ripples as they spread and sometimes reach places far from the point of impact. The ripples you make in your daily life can be equally far-reaching. It’s entirely up to you, though, as to whether you toss that stick or let everything lie still and undisturbed. (Go on...throw the stick!)

The Perils of Power

The recent exploits of Anthony Weiner are only the latest in a string of seemingly irrational acts committed by folks seen as powerful in their respective arena. John Edwards and his love child, Arnold Schwarzenegger and his, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and the chambermaid, Chris Lee and his shirtless pose for Craigslist: just some of the more recent. One could say that such behavior dates back at least to Richard Nixon and his Watergate albatross, but all have one thing in common: powerful people doing stupid things.

The first phase of this stupidity path is audacity. Many, if not most of us have fantasized about committing some sort of illegal or immoral act. The little voice that keeps us from acting on that impulse is our conscience telling us that we’re screwed when (not if) we get caught. The powerful, though, have come to ignore that voice as they are led further and further into the land of make-believe where anything they do can be made to disappear.

The audacity leads one to act on impulse and, when caught, to the lying that inevitably follows. (Chris Lee the notable exception since he resigned from Congress immediately upon being discovered.) Once again, audacity reigns supreme in creating the belief that the bad news will simply go away simply because of the individual involved.

Sooner or later, the truth comes out in one way or another. The facts pile up as water behind a levee and cracks are soon exposed which allow even more details to come rushing onto the public scene. The powerful have learned that the rest of us demand they take responsibility for their actions. As such, many now claim that they take full responsibility for their actions. Only after their lies have failed, of course, and they seem to believe the claim alone will bring the unpleasantry to an end.

 Responsibility is hollow absent consequence, though, and this is where power starts to trip upon itself. You see, the powerful see consequence as having no place at the head of their table and refuse to entertain its certainty. Nixon’s resignation, Clinton’s impeachment, Arnold’s divorce and DSK’s incarceration are all fine examples of the consequences stemming from the doing and the lying.

Anthony Weiner now refuses to resign from Congress. The point seems moot to me since he will be shunned within those halls and subsequently spurned by the voters. While his acts may not be illegal and many may deem them something short of immoral, his lying as an attempt to avoid responsibility and consequence should be unpardonable. I would hope that honesty and integrity be sacrosanct for any member of Congress.

So long as there are pedestrians within the halls of power, be they political or corporate or social, the perils of audacity, avoidance, responsibility, and consequence will exist. True, over time we become disillusioned with those considered role models and subsequently cynical of those that follow. Perhaps, if we all accept the fact that power doesn’t dispel human failings, we can better accept the bad side when it appears.

As for Weiner? Well, should he decide to resign, I’ve an idea for his future enterprise: the marketplace is apparently in need of professionally photographed poses of penises.  Who wouldn’t want their manhood to be depicted in its best light before sharing it with the cyber-world? He’s got the name and the experience. He could call it DixPix!

Help Wanted...Please!

Immediate Opening:
Presidential Candidate
No Experience Necessary
Must be willing to debate smart black man
Belief in God and Guns a plus
Contact Republican National Committee


It's hard to believe that, with an unemployment rate of 9%, the Republican Party is struggling to find a viable candidate that might challenge Obama next year. On the other hand, when one considers what a candidate is expected to provide, maybe not.

The Tea Party has thrown the party ass over tea kettle (pun intended) as they pull any hopeful to the right. While this may serve them well during the primaries, national elections generally attract more moderate voters who will cross party lines to avoid strident views. This means that the candidates must be near-schizophrenic as they energize "the base" to get the nomination and then the nation by espousing differing views.

California's race for Barbara Boxer's senate seat last year is a case in point: while all polls showed Tom Campbell the only primary candidate able to defeat Boxer, the primary voters looked upon him as too moderate. They chose Carly Fiorina to challenge Boxer and she lost because the overall pool of voters more than likely looked upon her as too far to the right.

And, despite what they purport, the Republican field views Obama as a formidable opponent and anyone with aspirations of a political future is loathe to run and lose for fear of an enduring scar in 2016. Candidates such as Gingrich or Giuliani have little to lose. Pawlenty is so new on the national scene that he, too, could well survive a defeat and live to run another day. Likewise, Sarah Palin could well run as the anti-establishment candidate without harming her brand name.

Regardless, the schism within the party has created the need for one person that can satisfy the expectations of two very different constituencies. So maybe, after all, we should not be surprised that many on the right have decided to sit out the 2012 dance.

In the meantime, the political right remains frustrated as they look for that perfect candidate. It is very possible that, in realizing there is no such animal in this cycle, the Tea Party will promote their own candidate. While this may be philosophically satisfying, the result will be a revisit to 1992 when Ross Perot's name on the ballot split the Republican vote and Clinton won the White House.

Whomever the eventual nominee is, the mantra will remain the same: low taxes, small government, family values. In other words, pay little, expect nothing, and keep your private life private. All three run counter to human nature and examples abound to prove their impotence. Nevertheless, expect a debate over polarizing philosophies rather than real-world ideas and proposed solutions. So maybe the particular candidate's name is secondary and really has no bearing on what happens next.

A true conundrum, to be sure, and only time will tell if a serious contender throws a hat into the ring. Should Obama contribute to some national failure or scandal, the doors open wide for challengers as soon as he is seen as vulnerable. Otherwise, don't expect much from right field. It's not about our nation's future and continued vitality, you know. It's about the future and vitality of one's public service "career".

Never Forget

The traditional Memorial Day is reserved for a period of reflection and remembrance in honor of those that died while serving in the Armed Forces. It was created after the Civil War as a vehicle to heal the scars of that conflict and the deep divisions that remained.

Today’s Memorial Day is a weekend affair. While it may still include a moment of silence for those that gave their lives, it seems to be more of a salute to the beginning of summer and the recreational offerings provided. Without a doubt, times change and I’d be the last person to ask you to refrain from frivolity in the name of drawn out dwelling on more maudlin subjects.

What I do ask, however, is to consider broadening our scope. Those that gave their lives for this country fully deserve their own day, but I can’t help but wonder about other heroes in our lives that well deserve a moment, too. Some of these folks have passed on and we can only give them a private thought of thanks. But others are still living and I can think of no reason for not including them in our Memorial Day consideration. After all, why must we wait until someone dies before acknowledging their role in our lives?

We’ve all got someone in our past that enjoys a higher echelon of respect and admiration. They may be relatives or friends or bosses or colleagues. Regardless, they all share the fact that they have contributed greatly in our success. So why not remember them along with our military heroes?

The beauty of this proposal lies in the opportunity to reach out and thank someone who richly warrants the praise. Sadly, such conversations are often put off until a eulogy is delivered. Why wait? Recognize that today is fleeting and tomorrow is never guaranteed. Make the call, knock on the door, send that email or text (although I’d say that some sort of oral conversation would be best). What better way to acknowledge all the people, strangers and acquaintances alike, that deserve our thanks? And, what with a three day weekend, there’s plenty of time to add some folks to your list, isn’t there?

Some of us will be drawn to cemeteries to commemorate the ultimate sacrifice made by those dear to our hearts. Others will attend ceremonies to honor our fallen soldiers. These occasions are important and serve to remind us that our freedoms do not come without a cost. There's still ample time left, however, to reach out to the other heroes in our life.

That's it: short and sweet. After all, it’s Memorial Day and I’ve got a few calls to make. How ‘bout you?

Engineered Society (with a side of rapture)

Before diving in to this week’s topic, a quick salute is in order to Harold Camping and his spot-on prediction of the rapture (yesterday at 6:00 pm). True, I’ve not lost one single potential reader, but that only means no one was “selected” to rise above the rest. So much for holier-than-thou attitudes, huh? Ironically, every religion quotes from its personal scripture of superiority to the detriment of others not so like-minded. Yup, Harold, your prediction was flawless. It just turned out that you and other rapture hopefuls were simply not worthy. ‘Nuff said...

Boy! What a week for Newt Gingrich. Much ink and audio tape has been used to discuss his past (infidelities), present (engaging mouth before mind), and future (poster boy for the "What I Meant To Say Association") so re-plowing that ground is a waste of my time and yours. One would think, though, that a career politician would consider avoiding these common mistakes as easy as shooting fish in a barrel. Unfortunately, in this age of microscopic vivisection of every word, the above "fish/barrel" analogy would provide simultaneous endorsement from the NRA and condemnation from PETA. But I digress. Within his discussion of Paul Ryan's budget proposal, Newt had an interesting thought. To paraphrase: he considered social engineering from the right no more desirable than social engineering from the left.

The firestorm of controversy was immediate. So much so, in fact, that the meat of his opinion was ignored as pundits and politicos zeroed in on right vs left.  The meat? Social engineering. I'll be the first to admit that I've never heard that term before, but it seems to imply a methodical attempt to shape a society in a given way according to a given set of principles.

"Perish the thought", you cry. Hold on a minute. Our society is comprised of a Constitution and a boat load of laws all aimed at creating some semblance of order out of chaos. These documents were written in an attempt to shape our society in a given way according to a given set of principles. Engineered, if you will, by many legislators over the past two centuries with differing opinions, but one over-riding tenet: the continued success of this country.

Maybe Newt was onto something. Or maybe not. It seems that he is opposed to any engineering from anyone regardless of which side of the political highway it originates. Doesn't that take us back to the chaos that gave rise to the previously mentioned documents? I'd say so.

In light of the current political atmosphere where one side (the right) is threatening to hold its breath until it gets its way, Newt's stance is intriguing. On some level, he knows that Ryan's proposal has no chance of passage so apparently he'd rather have nothing instead of anything that might come from somewhere left of center. That sound you hear is generations of forefathers spinning in their graves.

Perhaps this is a logical evolution of the "me" generation. The squabbling and separatism have reached all-time highs while those of us in the trenches suffer as much from inaction as unintended consequences. Isn't it time for us all to get along? OK, how about at least meeting somewhere closer to the middle? And by "middle" I don't mean right of center as the left moves ever closer to the right in the hopes of appearing reasonable.

Our society is nothing but a group of folks adhering to common principles established through laws, ordinances, and other constructs that dictate a general expectation of behavior. Yes, you can call it social engineering and no, it is not perfect. But it's all we have and failing to recognize that and refusing to entertain compromise will surely lead to the chaotic scenario no one wants to envision.

Scrapping established social systems like Medicare and Social Security simply because they are unsustainable in their present form is childish and lacks any kind of rational thought for the well being of you or me or those around us. The next time you wake up in the middle of the night, far removed from emotional response and more willing to entertain reason, try to admit that you, too, realize that universal health care is right and proper. And face the hard fact that a decreasing number of worker bees cannot continue to fund an increasing number of retirees without tweaking the associated programs.

It doesn't start with Washington, you know. It starts with us and whom we choose to represent our interests. Not our individual interests, but rather our common ones. We can continue to elect firebrands while complaining about legislative gridlock or look to a new group comprised of a more moderate mentality that might be able to slowly steer our ship of state onto a more appropriate course.