Playing Favorites

The country seems to be in a lull between natural disasters. Hurricane season is off to a slow start, spring tornadoes have abated, and wildfires have yet to erupt on a large scale. Rest assured, though, that catastrophes of this type (along with others, such as flooding) will soon find their ways into the lives of many. And when they do you can rest equally assured that media crews will be on scene with the breaking news.

Amid the widespread damage incurred by these events, there is usually at least one residence that escapes unscathed. Surrounded by complete destruction, our fortunate homeowner looks into the camera and says, “God was watching over us”. Wow! This guy must really have connections. I cannot help but wonder why the news crew doesn’t race across to the nearest ravaged home-site, find the unfortunate homeowner, and ask, “What in the hell did you do to deserve this?”. After all, if we take the first statement at face value, doesn’t it logically lead to some heinous behavior on the part of the poor soul who has just lost everything?

Many of us give god the credit when good things happen, but who gets the blame when tragedy befalls? We’ve all seen the athlete point an index finger to the heavens after hitting the game winning home run or scoring the decisive touchdown. No pointing skyward, though, when he strikes out or fumbles on the one yard line. How about extending the middle finger in these cases? It would at least level the theological playing field, wouldn’t it? And, if we give the glory to god for our successes, should he not be privy to the ignominy for our failures?

There is an alternative to these explanations: god is elsewhere and paying attention to far greater enterprises than weather patterns or sporting results and the like. If god made the weather, than those living in the paths of associated phenomena occasionally get their clocks cleaned while neighbors do not. To assume good fortune is due to the goodness of god is just about the most pretentious statement one could make for it simultaneously assumes ill fortune is wrought upon those less deserving.

Karma? Well, this theory also has its roots in religion so I’m not too sure if we’re any better off with. It does, however, address the belief that our good acts will pay off in future dividends while less-than-desirable behavior will be equally punished at some point of time, but it still implies some sort of personal responsibility for events that occur in our lives.

While there are, indeed, outcomes that result from our direct participation, there are an even greater number of events that are random. Tornadoes, hurricanes, or earthquakes can seemingly strike anywhere at any time. They are no different than missing a horrific auto accident or any other tragedy by scant seconds. Let’s chalk it up to the randomness of nature or, perhaps, the right place at the right time (or, if you prefer, the wrong place at the wrong time).

I know some of you are thinking it: shit happens. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. How about letting god off of the hook for either one?

Water, Water Everywhere...

...and not a drop to drink: this past week ABC News ran a story on its World News program about the plight of residents in Sunflower County, Mississippi. Forty of the county’s residents, according to the report, are not afforded the availability of running water. The county’s residents can access high speed internet, cell phones, and the like, but something so rudimentary as running water seems to be a luxury. Ludicrous? Incredible? Well, I have some other, more basic, words in mind: shameful, for instance. Disgraceful also applies. Nonetheless, the story is true. I spoke with Gail Riddick, a Sunflower County realtor, and she confirmed the facts of ABC’s report.

It seems that Mississippi has various water authorities that are charged with providing the infrastructure that provides residents with running water. These authorities appear to be autonomous and, as such, hold sway when it comes to the where’s and when’s. Of course, this infrastructure costs money to establish and money is hard to come by right now, regardless of the specific administration. But times haven’t always been this difficult and the aforementioned residents have been lacking operative spigots for the past six years!

Even the USDA has failed to deliver any substantive assistance. They’ve recommended that the residents find an existing water authority and convince it to extend the existing infrastructure. Well, hell, if they could do that, why would they have bothered with the USDA? I don’t have specific demographics, but feel that its safe to say that the preponderance of the affected residents are black and poor. It would be easy to say that, if it were not for these two identifiers, water would be flowing freely. It would also be somewhat off target.

Despite their race and economic status, these folks are caught up in the swirling storm of unintended consequences. Somewhere, someone decided the creation of water authorities was the best way to ensure water service to all the residents of Mississippi. And maybe (hopefully) that was a good idea. Loose ends are unavoidable, though, and our friends in Sunflower County are the quintessential loose end. Since their numbers are reasonably small and they possess no political or financial clout, it is easy to place their concerns on a very small back burner.

There are, however, champions for such small, disenfranchised groups and I can’t help but wonder where they are. How about the Reverends Jackson (Jesse) and Sharpton (Al)? I know they’re busy with Michael Jackson’s family, but wouldn’t this involvement prove to be more personally rewarding? Did you know that B.B. King was born in Sunflower County? And Archie Manning? Yes, indeed. They are both famous sons and while they may contribute in other ways and for other causes, is there anything more basic than getting a glass of water from the kitchen sink?

I’ve done my share of traveling and would be the first to admit that ignorant, backward, uncaring rednecks enjoy no geographic borders. On the other hand, Mississippians tend to be painted with this broad brush and are sensitive to such a portrayal of their population. Unfortunately, cases such as this serve only to reinforce the negative perception of those within the Magnolia state.

I’m the last one to encourage my readers to forward my pieces, but I’d like to make this an exception and encourage both of you (!) to forward these thoughts on to any and all that might read them. We live in the twenty-first century and to think that something as simple as running water is being withheld from anyone for simple financial reasons is inexcusable. What with stimulus funds floating around out there and other philanthropic grants, I can find no reasons other than lack of political will or grass roots activism to explain why this problem has gone on for so long. Who knows: maybe we can help make a small part of the world a better (and wetter) place.

Skepticism

I recently received an email from a friend regarding the “Stella Awards”. These awards are supposedly named after the lady who spilled hot coffee on herself and successfully sued the restaurant. The awards serve as a testament to the frivolous and sometimes warped nature of our legal system. And they have no basis in fact.

What? How can that be? I saw it on the web! When I received the email I was initially (and understandably) irked at how today’s juries tend to reward stupidity. But then my inner-skeptic took over and I did a little investigating through the same format that provided the information to begin with: the internet. Lo and behold, another site dedicated to debunking the urban myth surrounding the latest Stella Award winners. Apparently, there is no record of such people involved in such lawsuits in such courthouses. Go ahead: do a Stella Award search and you’ll see what I mean.

My first idea for this column was going to deal with the aforementioned frivolous awards for frivolous lawsuits. While that may still warrant some discussion, I will leave it for another day so I can address the value of skepticism. A healthy dose of skepticism was once thought to be essential so as to avoid being duped by would-be con artists, shady salesmen, and any others looking for someone who would listen to their spiel. Newspapers and other media sources were generally given the benefit of any doubt because they were all monitored by editors and other proofers who were tasked to ensure reliable reporting.

The internet changed those tenets of reporting, though, because, while the traditional reporter / editor was confirming the story, the web had it posted and was on to other breaking news. No vetting, no editing, no confirming: someone saw something and put it out there for all to see. To keep pace television, radio, and newspapers were forced in publishing or airing with the same speed and keeping their fingers crossed that the stories proved to be true.

And we all know that this has not necessarily been the case. At the same time, we have come to believe what we see on our monitor as gospel absent any of that skepticism that once kept us relatively safe from flim-flammery. So, when we read of the Stella Awards, we get pissed off at ne’er-do-wells getting rich through outrageous settlements. I’d say that the last thing we need is a further lowering of our confidence in today’s legal system.

In today’s world, we may well be in more need of skepticism than ever before. This holds especially true when dealing with the world wide web. The reader / listener needs to weigh the plausibility of an article before deciding that it deserves further consideration, but figuring out how to accomplish that is a tougher nut to crack. Well, let’s start by learning to recognize “key words”.

Marketing departments love key words: “free”, “new and improved”, and the like are employed to garner your attention and to entice you to part with your money. The news industry has adopted key words, too: “shocking”, “unbelievable”, “breaking news”, and other hyperbolic adjectives. (“Unbelievable” has always puzzled me. I’m watching the news because I believe what they report and they tell me that the following story is unbelievable! Well, hell, why then should I believe it, or them?) Don’t get me wrong, I get some of my news from the web, but I limit my bookmarks to established news reporting entities. They may not be perfect, but they offer the best insurance of reliable facts. And, regardless of the source, I'm sensitive to key words that have little to do with facts and more to do with sensationalism.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, you can’t buy the Brooklyn Bridge, and, nowadays, you can’t instantaneously believe what you read or hear. Our skeptic’s eye needs to be exercised if we stand any chance of avoiding knee-jerk reaction to invalid or inaccurate information. One warning: it is a fine line line between heathy skepticism and nay-saying negativism. As a matter of fact, you can find similar definitions for both. In common practice, though, I’d say the former serves us well while the latter squelches any discussion, debate, or progress.

Government Intervention

As I write this and, more than likely, as you read this, the federal government is encroaching even further into our lives. The banking crisis, the automobile industry, national healthcare: you name it and Uncle Sam is intervening. My god, folks, when will we say, “Enough”?

Its time I share something with you, but it must stay between us. To let it out to the general public may well induce panic in the streets. So lean very close to your monitor: with the enactment of the first law of this (or any other) land, government has been intervening in the lives of its citizens. Okay, lean back now and pretend that everything is normal. Careful, for to scream this out at the top of your lungs invites mass hysteria.

Speed limits? Government intervention. Drivers licenses? Government intervention. Minimum drinking age? Government intervention. Every law ever written creates limits where there were none and those limits represent some sort of intervention into our previously unfettered lives. Why is it that, all of a sudden, we must steel ourselves from this intruder?

Part of the reason lies in the tried and true theory of fear mongering in the absence of rational argument. Right-leaning pundits and politicians have used this method of debate in the past with reasonable success. Other entities concerned with preserving the status quo use similar tactics to persuade us to prefer the devil we know over the devil we don’t. Another part lies in our resistance to government’s unnecessary intrusion into our pursuit of happiness. This part, at least, is a good thing because, without it, those in power would be even more inclined to exercise it.

Let’s think of society as the child and government as the parent. (Society includes the business world, too.) Now, as children grow and mature the parents provide them more latitude so long as their behavior is commensurate with expectations. Should they stray, however, mom and dad are quick to clamp down on their “freedoms” until they return to a more accepted degree of compliance.

Government’s role of regulating and/or monitoring has been minimized to the point where it is comparable to the folks leaving town for a month and trusting the kids to take care of themselves. And we all know, without actually doing it, that such a scenario, parentally speaking, is probably less than a great idea.

The “financial services” industry (don’t you love that name) has been on a bender for a good while. Every poke and prod at the limit of their authority was met with no resistance which only encouraged new pokes and prods. Money was rolling in and everybody was happy so why rock the boat? Maintaining the nautical theme, that ship has sailed. The economy is on the rocks and many retirement plans have disappeared down the drain. For the feds to step in so as to prevent further damage makes perfect sense.

Using our money for bailouts in the banking and automotive sectors is unpalatable on many fronts, but the collateral damage from failures of such grand scale would be far worse, I’d think. Even now, the ripples are touching nearly every other sector of our economy. Let’s consider those bailed out as kids who are in desperate need of structure. That structure now exists in the form of executive compensation and the monitoring of other front office decisions so long as public money is included in the corporate coffers.

The nationalized health care debate is glowing white hot as Congress attempts to get its arms around this problem that, in one way or another, costs us all. Lets consider the healthcare industry a recalcitrant tyke who refuses to modify any behavior until the threat of even greater discomfort looms. The current administration seems serious about providing some degree of health care for most, if not all, citizens. Suddenly, providers, hospitals, doctors, and the like want a seat at the table. Why the change?

It could be because there is now a serious threat to the status quo and the only way to keep one’s ox from being gored is to get involved in what will be the new status quo. Kind of takes concern for the patient out of the mix, doesn’t it? Regardless, the parental threat causes a desired reaction from the brat.

While none of us may support unwarranted intrusions into our daily lives, such forays cannot be considered novel by any standard. The degree of intervention should be proportional to the unruliness of society and I think we can agree that the kids have had the run of the house for so long that major intervention is required. So stop the ballyhooing of socialist state or anti-capitalism or nationalization. Our system is out of whack and needs some tweaking. Something the government is uniquely positioned to effect.

Strange Bedfellows, Indeed

Well, I had this week’s topic (government intervention) pretty well set in my mind and then, out of left field, Governor Mark Sanford (R-SC) strays from the Appalachian Trail all the way to Argentina. Now there is one wrong turn, folks! They say that politics makes for strange bedfellows, but this is getting out of hand.

Amid calls for his resignation, Governor Sanford is striving to maintain some semblance of order in the operation of his state’s business. Camps are divided between “Who cares” and “When is he leaving”. Personally, I care a great deal. Why? Good question. After all, I do not fall within the blanket of South Carolina government, so why should I lose any sleep over who Sanford is sleeping with?

To answer that, I need to go back to the ’80’s and take a look at the Reagan administration and policies that sprang from that era. As far as I can tell, things began to change during Reagan’s second term when then-Attorney General Ed Meese convened his Commission on pornography. The next thing you know, Southland Corporation (7-Eleven stores) was pulling Playboy and Penthouse magazines off of their shelves.

Up until that point, “Republican” was a reference to fiscal conservatism and the empowerment of the individual. It seems to me that the Republican Party, in trying to prolong and preserve its power, began to see the Religious Right as an important ally in that quest. It took some time and tinkering, but, by the end of the 20th century, they had it down pretty pat: family values and the like with the full voiced support of Republican office holders and candidates. Throwing stones at the left? More like bricks, if you look their response to Bill Clinton’s dalliances.

The only problem in this approach is that all of us, regardless of political persuasion, are subject to straying from the straight and narrow. Now, should a regular guy get caught in a strange boudoir the outrage is relatively tame. But if this same guy historically espouses “family values”, that outrage grows exponentially due to the hypocrisy, if nothing else.

Political sex scandals are nothing new and the distribution among the two parties is nearly split. The Republicans, however, suffer much more through these trials because of their family values stance. No one likes a hypocrite and the right sets themselves up for major retribution by clinging to this holier-than-thou position. Trust me, no politician should waste time claiming to be above any kind of fray.

We should not give a rip about the bedroom or bathroom (in the case of Larry Craig) habits of our elected officials. We should care, however, about the two party system. If the Republican Party continues to concentrate on socially admirable traits rather than the solution to real problems they diminish their importance in the political debates that need their input.

So come on, you guardians of the right: leave the bedroom behind and walk over to the office, where you belong. While I may not agree with some of your proposals, I recognize the need to keep you at the table. Continuing to hang your hat on the nails of fidelity and family will only ensure your limited effectiveness in remaining a viable voice within the political spectrum.

Qualifications

Many of us possess some sort of qualification to perform specific tasks. Probably the most common is the driver’s license: it “qualifies” an individual to operate a motor vehicle. Some qualifications can be found on the walls of doctor’s or lawyer’s offices and they attest to a level of expertise in each case. I carry my qualification in my wallet. It is an Airline Transport Pilot rating, is issued by the FAA, and qualifies me to fly in the left seat of a commercial airliner. It is the gold standard of aviation and every commercial airline captain carries such a certificate.

In recent media reports, much has been made of the Colgan Air captain involved in the Buffalo, NY crash having failed numerous checkrides. It is this point that I wish to dwell on for a few moments and hope you have the time and inclination to read further.

In my thirty nine years of aviation affiliation, I have taken countless checkrides. And a portion of my Air Force career was dedicated to administering checkrides to fellow pilots. I am proud to say that, through a combination of timing, skill, and luck, I have never failed a checkride. That is not meant to portray myself as the brightest bulb in the box. I am far from infallible and remind myself of that fact every time I strap into my aircraft.

To arbitrarily consign an aviator to mediocrity based solely on the number of failed checkrides is to oversimplify a complicated issue to the point where any meaningful conclusion is impossible. I have seen colleagues who are more than capable pilots fail a checkride for a variety of reasons. Generally, the failure is due to the misapplication or poor timing in the performance of a given procedure. A mistake, in other words. While a checkride is only a snapshot of a pilot’s ability, it affords one the opportunity to learn from such a mistake and re-attempt the task. There are many reasons behind a busted ride, but all evaluations have a common conclusion: satisfactory performance.

Did you fail your first driver’s test? How about the bar exam? Or your medical boards? Or perhaps you had more than one failed attempt. We do not look back in such a way after a car crash or an undesirable verdict or an unsuccessful surgery. Why should we after a plane crash? Granted, such failures may illuminate shortcomings in training or ability, but to take the results out of hand and render a blanket condemnation serves no useful purpose.

Should airlines be afforded the opportunity of reviewing an applicant’s complete aviation history? Of course, but such background investigation has been spotty, at best. Perhaps due to an FAA mentality of voluntary compliance, perhaps due to a supply and demand dilemma at the regional airlines who are finding it increasingly difficult to find would-be employees willing to work long hours for low pay. In either case, there is nothing wrong with a peak into the past so long as it is accompanied with an explanation of any questionable areas.

Ironically, I am currently embroiled in a debate over “qualification” with my employer (a major US legacy airline). The airline has elected to modify the instrumentation of the aircraft I fly from old, “steam driven”, round gauges to a state of the art electronic display . This new display provides me all of my basic flight information: airspeed, altimetry, rate of climb/descent, and the like. In my 24 years at this airline, I have never flown a similarly equipped aircraft. Nevertheless, last November, in my scheduled recurrent training session, I watched a short video on this new equipment and took a short quiz. At the conclusion of this quiz, the instructor told the entire class that we were now “qualified” to fly a jet with this new display. I took exception to this and immediately contacted the appropriate powers-that-be. “Don’t worry,” they said. “You’ll be down for a simulator before you’ll ever see it on the line.”

Unfortunately, that promise rang hollow. I have yet to return for my next recurrent training session and was presented with the new display just several weeks ago. Knowing full well the possible ramifications, I turned and walked off the aircraft. I advised the proper folks that I did not feel qualified to fly with such a novel and untried presentation without first seeing it in a simulated environment. “Well, you’re qualified,” they said. Yes, by virtue of a check mark in a box I was, indeed, technically qualified. On a more pragmatic scale, though, I was anything but fully prepared to conduct a safe and uneventful flight.

We each must hold ourselves accountable when operating under the “qualifications” of any permit, license, or approving authority. Drunk driving or any other careless behavior predicated upon the theory of “it’ll be alright” is a dereliction of the responsibility accompanying the qualification. While my airline (and the FAA) consider me qualified to command an aircraft with a display format I have yet to actually touch, activate, and (yes) make a mistake, I beg to differ. The unwritten contract I have with my crew and my passengers expecting only the best from me holds far more import.

Supply and Demand

The idea of supply and demand reigning supreme in the marketplace is nothing new. Last week, I wrote of executive bonuses and wondered why there are no employee bonuses of any significant size. Supply and demand (theoretically, at least) should take care of the worker-bees, but subtle shifts have caused a mutation in the original theory, I’d say. I offer some examples:

Doctors: Becoming an M.D. is a laborious and expensive enterprise and it stands to reason that anyone entering into this profession would seek compensation commensurate with the time and energy dedicated to a successful outcome. A young doctor today sees limited income potential in traditional areas of General Practice and seeks, instead, a specialty so as to maximize earnings. But HMO’s, promising to solve the health care crisis, have succeeded only by limiting specialized care and lowering payments to physicians in general. As a result, many reconsider a career in medicine. The prospect of national health care and even lower rewards drives even more medical hopefuls into other, more lucrative, areas.

Despite these facts, medical school tuitions remain high and the prospect of making a reasonable return on investment is leading to an increased shortage of qualified doctors for you and me. Where does supply and demand figure into this problem?

Airline pilots: These folks have traditionally come from the military services with long resumes and more than a modicum of flight time. But the military pipeline has slowed to a trickle. Not that one would notice, what with airlines cutting capacity, but the day will come when demand once again returns. What then? Well, we have a supply of pilots at the regional airline level and they have cut their teeth on smaller jets with similar technology. Their move to a bigger cockpit might be an easy transition, but who fills their spot? You’re right...no one. Much like doctors, professional pilots spend a large portion of time and money obtaining the experience required by the airlines. So, as pilots’ wages and benefits have been slashed through bankruptcy court or concessions coerced through the threat of Chapter 11, why spend time and money on a job that is not currently available and, even if it were, offers little or no reward for the effort? With such a gloomy future in the industry, many choose other career fields.

Teachers: Society once thought of an education as something that just happened. Kind of like the sun rising in the east. Not so (as we now realize). As teacher salaries have been decimated, so, too, has the quality of education available to our students. “Teaching” has been reduced to crowd control and passing a test tied directly to funding at the expense of “learning”. Low pay and dismal job satisfaction combine to, once again, force those that would otherwise seek a career in education to look in other directions to secure a piece of the American dream.

The list of career fields that are short on personnel yet still fail to offer incentives goes on and on. Most are technical in nature or require some sort of specialized skill and the day is fast approaching where the supply falls to zero. How? Well, the folks that currently hold these positions worked a good while to attain their current level of success. Unless their eventual replacements see similar rewards, they go in other directions and replacements simply no longer appear on the horizon. The time to create demand through financial and quality of life possibilities is before the supply line dries out, i.e. now. Waiting until there’s a critical shortage only guarantees a crisis of greater proportion.

There are two areas that still provide opportunity and they lie at opposite ends of the employment spectrum: executives and clerks. I would like to think that today’s unemployment rate would create an opportunity for many businesses to get rid of the recalcitrant clerks, indifferent attendants, and other unpleasant employees in favor of someone who needs a job, wants a job, and realizes the qualities that make for a desirable applicant.

Conversely, doesn’t everyone want to be the boss? With that kind of supply, why the need to create demand? It stands to reason that executive pay would come down to a point where the two were relatively equal, doesn’t it? (Don’t hold your breath on this one, though.)

We depend on many folks with various skills that combine to make our economy and society work. Neglecting them on the premise of corporate productivity and profitability does nothing to ensure a continuing supply of similarly qualified employees.