Super-Duped

“Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me!” W.’s mangling of that sentiment notwithstanding, it serves the rest of us well as we strive to avoid making the same mistakes again and again. And, should we repeat a given mistake, who to blame. Sorry to break it to you, but we’ve been hoodwinked at regular intervals on different fronts for most of our lives. The most recent failure of the “Super-Committee” is but one of many and an excellent starting point, I’d say.

After the House as a whole was unable to find common ground in reducing government spending, they thought it best to form a smaller group of their peers with free rein in an attempt to rein in the cash flowing from Washington into other coffers. And the Super-Committee was thus created. Super powers? Super smart? How about supercilious? Or superficial, perhaps. No, there was nothing super about this assemblage other than the marketing that promoted the possibility of success.

On a wider political note, we’ve come to believe that a two-party democracy is in our best interests and entertaining any third party candidate will only split the vote and allow an otherwise unpalatable candidate to win. The fact is that the Republican and Democratic party’s best interests are served to our detriment. Without the third voice, the issues and resulting debates can be controlled while avoiding real world challenges and outside-the-box solutions. Regardless, the electorate continues to shun that third voice.

Black Friday has come and gone, but not without record breaking attendance and sales.  Unfortunately, it also included fist fights, gun shots, and pepper spray used by a shopper on would be opponents (other shoppers) for coveted merchandise. All due to the marketing machine determined to convince the consumer that buying early is the only way to save money and get treasured gifts before they’re gone. Salesmanship 101, in other words. And year after year, more and more folks line up days in advance. As an interesting aside: none of those encamped outside retail outlets in anticipation for Black Friday were threatened with removal by local authorities while other non-violent Occupy venues were being torn down.

Economically, banks continue to sing the song of friendship while keeping an ever-tightening grip on the money they purport to be ready to lend. Banks have never been our friend, you know, but we still seem to gravitate to the bank in our neighborhood in spite of escalating fees and reduced availability of funds. Once again, marketers cajole and coax us into losing our resolve and continuing on the same financial path.

We are creatures of habit to be sure and have proven, time and again, that we can be duped. But is there a time when we finally figure out that everything is built around marketing with a singular goal of serving the best interest of the client, not the consumer. (Yes, you and I are the consumers.) Maybe the current state of our nation may move us toward a third party’s voice in the political debate. Or maybe a resistance to buying the newest and greatest at the earliest possible moment. Or even expecting a bit more quid for the quo in patronizing a specific financial entity. If we continue to fall for the hype of “Super” or “Improved” or “Trust Us” in spite of the almost certain letdown that usually follows, we at least know whom to blame.

Balancing Power

Picture, if you will, a public gathering place within a city. A park, perhaps, or maybe a square. Within its confines, picture an assemblage of run-of-the-mill citizens who are visibly upset with the situation be it economic, religious, or governmental. The powers-that-be are present, too, in an attempt to prevent the situation from escalating. These powers represent the ruling few. Some are police while others are military. Some work for “legitimate” governments while others enforce the will of dictators. In many cases, things get out of hand and force is used against the demonstrators. Arrests, orders to disperse, and the like are followed by pepper spray, water cannons, rubber bullets, or worse in a ratcheting up of the effort to maintain control.

Cairo? Tripoli? Syria? Maybe Greeks or Italians? What about New York City or Oakland or any number of American cities supposedly besieged by Occupy forces? “Hold on!”, you say. “You can’t compare the U.S. with the rest of the world!” Why not? The shoe appears to fit at least to the point where we can draw parallels.

I’m not here to discuss the pros and cons of populations gathering to protest anything they find onerous. I’m looking at the thin line between order and anarchy and the degree to which those who hold power will go to maintain it. The Occupy folks have been ordered out of parks and other venues in the name of security and public health. Similar tactics have been used in other countries and I can’t help but see these tactics, regardless of location, as nothing more than a rationale to clamp down on a growing voice of disenchantment to preserve the illusion of control.

Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Greece, and Italy have seen recent changes in the hierarchy of their respective governments. All have come about because of severe unrest within their citizenries. Some were relatively violence free while others saw significant bloodshed. Either way, they all prove one point: an orderly government relies significantly upon the cooperation of those being ruled. After all, the masses represent an overwhelming majority and without their acquiescence, upheaval is unavoidable.

And the ruling few know this, too. That is why their response to any protest that appears to be gaining strength escalates exponentially.  A show of force is the only way to defuse a situation that may well lead to changes in the halls of power. Are the powerful few paranoid? Not necessarily, because they fully realize that their hold on power is tenuous at best and requires a degree of public approval.

While our political system seems more organized and orderly than most others, don’t for a minute think that our leaders wouldn’t resort to harsh measures to put down a so-called uprising. Is there a difference between tearing down tents in Tahrir Square in Cairo and in New York City’s Zuccotti Park or San Francisco’s Market Street? Remember Kent State or Chicago’s Democratic National Convention? No, we’re not that much different, folks. Maybe luckier, but not much different.

When the rulers become disconnected from their constituencies, disillusionment follows. In this country, we are seeing a growing chasm between the haves and have-nots and those thought culpable suffer no apparent consequence. The Occupy movement started with a small group of folks interested in bringing Wall Street to account for the sins leading up to 2008. It has grown, though, to include individuals who, for one reason or other, feel abandoned by those chosen to lead and have subsequently lost hope in the American Dream. Without that hope, more and more will find that demonstrating in the street provides an outlet to frustration that might otherwise be vented through more orderly channels in better circumstances. And with that comes sudden, messy changes that may not be in anyone’s best interest.

We are faced with a growing population of frustrated folks who see no use in pursuing a better life through conventional means. And our leaders will resort to ever-increasing means of control in an attempt to convince us that all is well and that “they” can control the situation. Why are the police not tearing down tents pitched outside retail stores in anticipation of Black Friday? Could it be that those campers represent more reasonable positions of economic stimulation? Why should that matter? Aren’t security and public health concerns universal? Does it matter one whit what the purpose of encampment might be?

We’re not in a real good place, my friends. And falsely believing that our leaders have more noble goals than those on foreign soil will not do us much good should things go on unresolved.

Pointless

A compass without a needle is worthless and recent events lend credence to the suspicion that the moral compass of some is desperately in need of one. From a major college campus to high levels within the Department of Defense, we’ve been let down on several fronts.

We may as well begin with Penn State and its icon, Joe Paterno. There are at least two participants in a criminal act: the victim and the perpetrator. If we’re lucky, a third is present: an eyewitness. Such was the case when Mike McQueary saw an assistant coach, Jerry Sandusky, raping a ten year old boy in the locker room showers. After consideration, McQueary consulted with his father and then, later, Paterno. 

Joe took some time before passing this information on to his superiors. And there, apparently, any further investigation ceased. While McQueary and those who later possessed the details fulfilled their legal obligation, where in the hell was the moral compass? Where was the instant outrage that would have carried Mike into the showers to come to the young boy’s aid? Perhaps he was so taken aback that he left the showers in a daze. OK, then how about calling 911 and reporting a rape in progress?

Consider Mike’s past and his future aspirations for a moment. He grew up an avid PSU supporter and played for Paterno during his college years. He was a low-level assistant at the time of the assault and no doubt had high hopes of rising within the coaching ranks on campus. It could very well have been his one true dream. But reporting such an incident could very well put that dream at risk. What if the institution (both PSU’s and Paterno’s) turned against him to protect themselves? God knows it would not have been the first time a whistle-blower was turned into grist by the “process”.

Better, perhaps, to pass it up the chain and let the “process” work things out. Safer, to be sure. And that was the course Mr. McQueary chose, much to the detriment of other young boys. I’m at a loss to explain the mental gymnastics required to align such a dereliction with reflections upon the decision that certainly arose in the middle of the night.

Now let’s turn to the DOD’s mortuary where the remains of fallen soldiers were theoretically afforded the utmost of respect in their disposition. It stands to reason that the task was overwhelming and a certain numbness would be required to get through each day. Nevertheless, where was the moral outrage when parts and pieces were regarded as so much flotsam and jetsam? Why was it left to three whistle-blowers to come forward only after the “process” once again chose to protect the institution over the individual?

Both cases involve heinous acts pitting the moral choice of the individual victim against the perceived integrity of an institution. And those closest to the truth chose to pay obeisance to the institution thus protecting their own interests. Comparisons to the Catholic church are numerous and merited.

No one looks to be in a position of being the first to raise an alarm. It’s much easier to wait for someone else to come along and take the brunt of the fallout. But what if there is no one else? Do we drive past the accident victim? Do we call a friend when witnessing an assault rather than the cops? Apparently so, at least in some cases. Media outlets are rife with video of passers-by seemingly unconcerned as others within eye-shot are under extreme physical duress. They, too, have lost their moral compass. Or, at least, the needle that points to the right course of action is clearly missing.

Everyday, we are faced with moral dilemmas where the “right” thing is in direct contradiction to the “wise” thing. Such thinking is rampant in Congress where members are exempt from the laws they pass. Isn’t it time to start thinking about what better serves all of us rather than falling back on personal agendas or institutional allegiance?

I’m sure that the DOD’s mortuary will institute an investigation. So has Penn State. That’s how the “process” works and by the time any substantive changes are made we are on to the next pressing issue. The most ludicrous part of PSU’s intended corrections is to create an Office of Ethics. I can only guess that this entity will try to instill a sense of morality upon a group of supposedly highly educated individuals. What a waste! Morality comes from within and the only person who might cause one to reflect on past practice is the one we see in the mirror.

Full Disclosure

Last week I celebrated two seemingly opposed events on the same day: winning the lottery and finalizing a divorce. The lottery win was of the airline type where I was able to retire with my retirement benefits intact and the divorce represents that, with the retirement funds safely in my account, all ties with my employer have been severed. So now I am able to come out of the shadows and finally divulge my airline affiliation which, until now, has been described as simply a legacy carrier. And maybe a bit of prognostication, too.

My airline lottery began with Air One, a post-deregulation carrier based in Saint Louis, in the spring of 1983. Eighteen months later the airline filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. In February of ’85 I entered the lottery again as a new-hire with American Airlines. Many told me at the time that I was now home free. Based on my earlier experience (and that of my peers) I was loathe to take anything for granted and was heard to say that I’d let them know in about 27 years.

Well, here I am: a winner. Many of my contemporaries suffered through bankruptcies and mergers where their retirements were either decimated or lost entirely. Did they make a bad decision regarding their choice of employer? Generally not. Many once-solid companies found it impossible to survive in a deregulated airline industry where many newcomers were given a legislative leg-up. PanAm, Braniff, Eastern, and others are gone and most in that lottery lost out as a result. No, give me no credit. Sometimes it’s better to be lucky than good.

I retired on September 1, but had to wait two months before the appropriate funds were transferred. I chose the option of taking a lump sum payment thus making it possible to cut any and all ties with the airline. Absent an annuity (or pension), should they experience a similar fate as many before them, my financial future is secure. 

I do not come here to praise American nor to bury it. Simply put, I can now offer my slant on what its future holds. Over the past several years, some airlines have combined forces (United/Continental and Delta/Northwest) while American chose to refrain from matchmaking. Regardless, we still have “the big three” and each is a member of one of three airline alliances: Star, SkyTeam, and OneWorld.

It is clear to me that American views a rosier future within OneWorld than independently growing by adding aircraft to the fleet and employees to the payroll. Management has come out and said as much when, in describing a new partnership with British Air, they state that the cooperation is “metal neutral”. In other words, AA doesn’t much care upon which airline the passenger books a flight. It seems that they consider the money gained from an American-ticketed passenger on a BA flight as pure profit and this does not bode well for AA employees looking to advance up the seniority list through growth. Likewise, other airlines within an alliance will rely on their partners to provide service to cities they, themselves, don’t serve rather than investing in aircraft and personnel.

I don’t believe that the other two airlines (UAL and Delta) feel much different and see a time in the not-too-distant future where we will have three major airlines called, you guessed it, OneWorld, SkyTeam, and Star. And you, the paying passenger will have little control over which airline you fly when booking an alliance flight. Additionally, within the alliance, member airlines can whipsaw employees against each other in an attempt to further ratchet down compensation and benefits. It will also be harder for a specific airline group to seek redress through the courts because international law will now be involved.

I think one can also expect a move to raise the limit on foreign ownership of US carriers and, eventually, the elimination of the prohibition on cabotage. Cabotage allows a foreign airline to transport US passengers within this country. (Yes, Lufthansa can fly from LAX to JFK to Frankfort, but they can’t drop any LAX passengers off at JFK.) If this final piece falls into place, the United States airline industry will have officially succumbed to the forces of globalization and I don’t think anyone is naive enough to think that, as a result, air travel will enjoy a return to the days of ease and pleasure.

So there you have it: my view of the future of the airline industry.  No longer a participant, I remain an interested observer from the nose-bleed seats. I hope I’m wrong and I hope that our elected officials will strive to maintain our air transportation system independent of foreign and corporate influence. But that hope hasn’t borne much fruit in other industries, has it?

Part Time Work...Full Benefits!

Many are looking for a job that offers benefits. Most part-time positions do not provide any kind of insurance or retirement, though, which may explain why part-time work is about all that’s available. But, like most other rules, there appears to be one exception and it’s a doozy: Congressional representative.

The Republican leadership in the House recently approved the 2012 schedule. It totals 109 days and, should you think I’m playing partisan politics, the Democratic leadership scheduled only 104 in 2008. Now, if this accurately represents the amount of work required of our representatives, why, then, do we provide them with such a high level of pay and benefits?

Oops! We don’t give it to them, do we? No, they give it to themselves. Could this be why the electorate seems so displeased with Washington? A safe bet, to be sure, and that’s why I’m asking you to peruse the following legislative proposition:


The Congressional Reform Act of 2011:


1. No Tenure / No Pension. A Congressman/woman collects a salary while in office and receives no
pay when they're out of office.


2. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security. All funds in the Congressional        retirement fund move to theSocial Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social      Security system, and Congress participates with the American people. It may not be used for any other purpose.


3. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.


4. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.


5. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.


6. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.


7. All contracts with past and present Congressmen/women are void effective 1/1/12. The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen/women. Congressmen/women made all these contracts for themselves. Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work.

Some may have seen this proposal as a forwarded email. I did, and I forwarded it to twenty people as requested. Nope, I don’t like forwards much, but this one seemed more than deserving. The problem lies in finding enough votes in Congress to support something that would severely limit the luxuries currently enjoyed.

It turns out that there is a way of bypassing Congress altogether: a Constitutional Convention. Should two-thirds of the state legislatures call for such a Convention, and three-fourths of the states subsequently pass the proposal, it then becomes law. And maybe this would change the way Washington has done business for most of our adult lives.

I’ve never asked my readers to pass my columns along to others, but this idea needs to be circulated to create the impetus needed for it to reach maturity. Feel free to cut it and paste should you wish to keep me out of the conversation. Regardless, I think it is in our own best interests to pass this idea along. So tell a friend (or two).

Q's (No A's)

In the almost three years of this weekly endeavor, my main objective has been to initiate a discussion in the setting of your choice. Whether the dining room table with friends and family or the lunch room with coworkers, without the exchange of ideas and exploration of possibilities there is little hope for progress.

With that in mind, today I ask questions, but offer no answers. I leave that to you, dear readers, in the hope that you’ll reintroduce or at least reinvigorate the passion in your conversations. Expect nothing but question marks from here.

How can Congress pass laws that do not apply to its members?

Why do we, the voters, consider only two parties when choosing our elected representatives? Is there a substantive difference any longer?

How can we advance as a society when more and more of our citizens are left behind economically, intellectually, and medically?

How much money is enough?

What is an acceptable unemployment rate?

What is a fair tax?

How do we win the war on drugs?

Should public service (politics) be a career?

If hetero, Is gay sex cheating? And, if gay, is hetero sex cheating?

Should there be a mandatory two year national service commitment for all?

Do corporations have a morale responsibility to society? If not, should they?

Is government oversight necessary to ensure a clean environment, safe drugs, or untainted food?

Does the fact that America is the only industrialized country not providing a level of health care to its citizens mean that the rest of the industrialized world is socialistic?

If you regard your life as a success, did you succeed without help?

If you regard your life as a failure, is there someone else to blame?

Is voting for the winner more important than voting for principle?

Should election day be expanded to encompass several days? If so, how many and which ones?

Should there be a specified campaign season?

Should there be a specified Christmas season?

Is the Post Office becoming obsolete?

Are e-cards as personal as traditional ones?

Which has more control over our daily lives: the President or Congress?

Are children more undisciplined or are parents more permissive?

Does a citizen have a real-world need for an assault rifle?

How is “special interest group” defined and what makes up the membership?

Are wars necessary? If so, how is winning a war defined?

Does the TSA make air travel safer?

Should government workers be forbidden from unionization? If so, how is “government” defined?

Should strikes be outlawed?

Which is more important: convenience or accomplishment?

Who should provide seed money for new, unproven technologies?

Do computers, smart phones, etc. control us or do we control them?

Would you rather text, email, talk on the phone, or meet face-to-face?

Where do the bullets go when shot in the air by rejoicers?

Wow! It’s amazing what comes to mind when only considering the Q’s. I’m sure that some A’s will crop up in the various conversations we find ourselves daily. While the particular answer may be meaningful, even more important is the dialogue that brings it about. Notice the rise in heart rate and how good you feel when moving beyond requisite small-talk? Have fun and let me know what answers you find.

Losing the Gray

I received a forwarded email a few days ago. I don’t care for forwards and rarely pay them much attention. This particular piece caught my eye, though, and after reading it I was strongly moved to respond. But why limit my wrath to the select few that were on the mailing list when I could share it with many more? Here is the first portion of the message:

Although some may feel this is political in nature, I am more inclined to see it as good old fashioned common sense, and that is the spirit in which I share it.

 A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her wise father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

I was dumbstruck at how dumb this girl’s father was. Didn’t he know the difference between charity and taxation? His example clearly falls in to the former category, not the latter, because his daughter is giving up an individually acquired product to another individual for their personal use. Taxation does, indeed, provide for those less fortunate, but it also provides many things we all use: highways, defense, clean air and water. The list goes on...


What if Audrey had a 2.0 GPA because her mother suffered from Alzheimer's and she was forced to miss many classes. And what if both girls were seeking admittance to a graduate program that mandated a 3.0 GPA? Would it be wrong to donate one point off of the 4.0 so both could continue their education? Regardless, the act would have been one of charity and one to proud of.

The email went on to finish thusly (I added the numbers for clarity):

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

1. If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

2. If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

3. If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

4. If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

5. If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.

6. If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it..
A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

7. If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

Well, I forwarded it to you.

And the author claims to represent “good old fashioned common sense” instead of politics? Conservative vs Liberal is nothing but political and serves only to pigeonhole and divide us further. As for common sense, how about this:

1. Whoever wants or needs a gun can have one. But assault weapons are not needed for sport or home protection. They are needed solely to inflict maximum carnage in a short period of time before the shooter is wrestled to the ground.

2. Eating meat is not necessarily bad. Eating too much meat, among many other things, is bad on many fronts. Disseminating the harmful effects of meat, or any other substance, serves to create a better awareness in us all as we make our daily life-style choices.

3. Some are down-and-out due to their own poor choices. Others are not. To treat both equally is shortsighted, serves no good purpose and costs us all in many ways.

4. Snarky, vehement statements on television and radio are made for ratings and offer nothing good to a debate on issues between thinking participants.

5. The separation of church and state is a good thing for many reasons. To expect it would make our forefathers proud.

6. The lack of health care costs us and our society dearly in lost time, money, and opportunity.

7. There is nothing funny when attempting to turn one against another based on some cockamamie black and white position when, in fact, the real solutions lie somewhere in the middle. You know: that gray area where no one wants to tread. Sadly, that’s where we should all be if we’re serious about finding a reasonable way out of our present-day problems.

Are there folks who are black or white, one side or the other, with no ability to grasp the concept of compromise? I’m sure of it, but that is no reason to encourage their position born of narrow-minded, brainless, sound-bite samplings that over-simplify while making it harder to find common ground, let alone common sense.

(And no, I didn’t forward it.)