One Helluva Bad Idea

Well, California's done it again: last week the Assembly voted to approve “No Cussing Week”. I can only hope that other state legislatures have enacted similar resolutions if for no other reason than commiseration. It seems that a teen-aged boy came up with the idea of refraining from “cussing” for a week. When a cuss word was uttered, a fee was paid to the Cuss Jar and, at the end of the week, all proceeds went to charity. This idea is so wrong on so many fronts that I just had to set aside more trivial matters and set my sights on this as the issue of the week.

First of all, please define cussing. Is it simply the taking of the lord’s name in vane (God#%&it)? Or does it include more common expletives (s&*t, hell, damn, dammit, f@$k, and so on)? We need some specific guidelines here if we are to abide by the law of the land.

And if the money obtained from cussing goes to charity and charity is a worthy cause, shouldn’t we then encourage cussing for a week? Look at the oodles of money we could collect! Instead, we discourage cussing and the collection jar diminishes accordingly. Is civil language trumping the needy? I sure as hell hope not!

And what about the legislators that have been caught up in this? I cannot think of one state or locality with no business of a higher priority on its plate, can you? Is this a desperate demonstration of bipartisanship? An example of how well we can get along (so long as it doesn’t involve anything of import)? I’d be ashamed to even entertain such a motion when urgent business awaits.

And finally, we get to today’s language itself. Granted, over the years once-thought-of expletives have crept into our vernacular. And, in some cases, they have overwhelmed what was once-thought-of as civil discourse. But the majority of folks, I’d say, recognize situations where letting it all hang out is inappropriate. Do you really believe that electronic media personalities never swear? Or lawyers or doctors? (I’ll omit pilots because everyone knows that we sure as hell do.) Yup, you can bet your gosh-darned boots they can swear up a blue streak when called upon. Well, most, anyway. My point lies in the fact that removing the more profane from our lexicon also removes the spice from conversation. There are times to use it and times to resist. To suggest that abstinence from expletives makes us a better society is ludicrous and creates nothing but a façade.

Some have commented on the profanity in my book. I believe that the words chosen were germane and not gratuitous. A book is not available to the public at large in the same sense as this weekly offering. That is why you see little or no “cussing” on this site. It is not because those phrases might not apply. Choosing the right time and place to either orate with grace or proselytize from the gutter is the thing. To attempt to remove such terms is akin to taking all the flavor from our foods: we’d be left with a pretty bland conversation.

The "Other" Deficit

It’s hard to find a newspaper or newscast that doesn’t include some reference to the deficit. And we all recognize the term to specifically refer to our present financial situation. There is another deficit running through our country and I’d say the failure to address it holds far more dire consequences.

The “other” deficit is one of faith in the various systems and organizations created to provide an orderly resolution to the problems we face everyday. The latest example of this faith deficit was last week’s air raid on an IRS building in Austin, TX. The seemingly mild-mannered pilot flew his small aircraft into a particular building for a particular reason. He is being painted as a lone crazy. While I agree that he was acting alone, I believe his “craziness” would be better described as an utter loss of faith in a system supposed to hear grievances and settle disputes fairly. I believe this guy lost all hope and, in its place, became desperate with nothing to lose and nothing of promise in his future.

We’’ll return to this particular event in a moment, but let’s first take a look at some specific social deficits:

1. The corporate morality deficit: With ever burgeoning executive pay and a wider gap between those that have and have not, American businesses have lost their moral compass (conscience, if you prefer). No one expects the demise of the profit motive but too few are gaining on the backs of the too many.
2. The respect deficit: From the workplace to the family room, respect is so scarce that, if it were an animal, it would be an endangered species. Figures that once enjoyed respect due to their position are ridiculed and ignored. Parents find an abyss of disdain as they attempt to instill a sense of responsibility and accountability in their children.
3. The recognition deficit: It seems that the ability to recognize other perspectives and individuals as possessing any type of validity is rapidly disappearing. We ignore the homeless and we disregard opinions that run counter to our set of beliefs. “I” and “we” have usurped “you” to the point where compromise in society, business, or politics borders on the impossible.

As this societal, corporate, and political deficit worsens, folks lose hope. They lose faith in the future and the ability to believe that the “system” will work for them. They are isolated and frustrated with nowhere to turn. So they become desperate and the illogical quickly becomes reasonable: if I’m going down, I’m going to take someone with me who’s responsible for my plight.

Such is the case with the Texan pilot and the IRS, I’d say. Or the teacher denied tenure or the worker bee passed over for promotion. Without faith in the system and hope for a better result, violence should not be a surprising end game. What is to be done?

An excellent question, but to answer it we must first acknowledge the problem. And therein lies the rub: no one within the maze of political or social departments can afford to admit that these acts of violence are something more than random, lone-wolf events. To do so would also acknowledge the inability to carry out their mandates of fairness, progress, and the reasonable settlement of disputes. Don’t expect anyone to stand up anywhere and say that they’re dong a lousy job. Keep in mind that even the lowest peon on any organizational chart is trying to keep that paycheck coming in. No, there’ll be no mea culpa from our powers-that-be and that only ensures similar examples of this “other” deficit will continue.

We are all beset with an endless list of demands and bad news. To throw our hands up in surrender solves nothing. Let us try to find that one ray of sun peeking out amongst the storm clouds. It may be just a thread, but it offers us something to grasp as we try to find that elusive better day. I may well be preaching to the choir, but it falls upon us choristers to try and keep our brethren from falling prey to this “other”, more dangerous deficiency.

Transparency and Risk

These two words tend to spring up in most stories dealing with our current financial maelstrom. Let’s start with transparency: I get the feeling that it refers to the ability to see who’s doing what to whom and for what reason. Or something close to that, anyway. The problem lies in the fact that transparency becomes important only when bad things happen. Otherwise, no one seems to care about the who’s and the why’s.

Every business transaction holds some sort of agenda that must remain hidden to achieve a maximum gain. Asking prices are inflated so the seller can accept a lower price without sacrificing the desirable profit margin. And the buyer’s agenda of getting something for less is also satisfied. It would be difficult to conduct business in any other way.

Poker players understand this concept perhaps better than anyone. The cards are held close to the vest for a reason, you know. To play a poker hand with all of the cards face up offers the greatest degree of transparency at the expense of any potential gain. No, we don’t want transparency so much as we want fairness, but neither are overabundant in today’s world of commerce. We want the Ken Lay’s of the world to tell us when our Enron stock is about to tank instead of delaying the inevitable collapse. The deceit creates the call for transparency and only to provide an explanation for why things went so terribly awry.

Mortgage brokers knew the real estate bubble would someday burst, but continued to package financial vehicles to keep it going as long as possible. Now that many are upside down in their homes, the hue and cry for “transparency” in lending has increased exponentially. Do you expect your banker or broker to tell you the worst case scenario instead of the best? Sorry, that’s just not how one closes a deal. The worst case scenario depends upon the buyer crunching the numbers to decide whether the worst case is survivable. Many did not do the math and are now dealing with the consequences.

Risk, in a way, goes hand in hand with transparency as both are found in the commercial arena in the buying and selling of products. The same financial meltdown that sparked the cry for transparency has also created a demand for less risk. If you want to keep your money safe, put it in your mattress. Or maybe an FDIC insured bank. (What with interest rates so low, one may not be that much more advantageous that the other.) The only other choice is to invest it in other things, be they real estate or mutual funds, or stocks and the like. And each one has an associated level of risk. Once again, the choice lies with the buyer. Don’t expect the seller to tell you that you’re making a mistake. That kind of honesty (or transparency, if you wish) runs counter to the art of selling.

Ironically, no one seems to care about risk or transparency when times are good. Most folks didn’t want to know how Bernie Madoff was providing consistently high returns on investment. Only when his Ponzi scheme was revealed did they scream for more information. Many made out quite well in the real estate market and other investments, but now that the tide has turned, someone else must be held accountable. Someone should have told us to get out of that fund or that market.

Alas, we have only ourselves to blame for failing to realize that all gain involves risk and what goes up...well, you know the rest. And with integrity in business there is no need for transparency. No commercial venture is risk-free: all opportunities have downsides and the buyer must rely on counsel from others than those doing the selling.

The Golden Age of Schizophrenia

The chances are slim that a schizophrenic would be reading these words. On second thought, maybe not. Nevertheless, today’s schizophrenics find themselves in a much more accepting world than ever before. When I was a kid, my folks warned me about people that talked to themselves. This behavior was a warning and any smart kid was well advised to cross the street or use any other avenue of escape so as to avoid drawing nearer to anyone exhibiting what was then though of as aberrant behavior. And, being a smart kid, I was ready for such an occurrence. I can’t tell you for certain that the opportunity to put my preparation into practice ever presented itself, but I was ready, by god, and I’m sure that many others employed such escapes. After all, schizophrenia and other related mental illnesses are nothing new.

What is so different about today’s world? Technology. Cell phones and bluetooth are now the norm and this combination has created a society where people are seemingly talking to themselves nearly nonstop. On the streets, in cars, while shopping: it’s hard to find a venue where someone isn’t using a small, hidden device to tele-communicate via another small hidden device. And, since the devices are somewhat hidden, the observer is hard pressed to differentiate between now-normal behavior and psychoses. (Yes, I know that the line is blurring in more ways than this singular one.)

Regardless, schizophrenics and others suffering from paranoia can now talk to the voices in their heads and blend in perfectly with their fellow pedestrians, diners, shoppers, or what-have-you. Hence, their Golden Age. No more ostricization or avoidance. Rather, a look of awe and curiosity as one tries to figure out just where the headset and cell phone are located. Even Tourette Syndrome sufferers can feel more comfortable in social situations. The only line any of these folks needs in their repertoire is, “I’ve gotta go...I’ll get back to you” and they’re set. At the first sideways glance or suspicious look they need only to say it loud and clear. Now all seems normal. “Hey, it’s just a new cell phone gizmo. Nothing to worry about.”

Is mental illness something to be made light of? Not necessarily, but these symptoms are common and have historically resulted in negative reactions. My point is more to the evolution of the rest of society: the “more normal”, if you will. That may be an overgenerous description, though. While those with mental disorders have little or nothing available to mitigate their behavior, the “more normals” can elect to have their private conversations privately rather than conducting them among others with little or no interest in being subjected to such boorish behavior. Who’s to say which is more aberrant?

Pitching In

Across the country there are countless associations, organizations, and clubs comprised of members who supposedly support the goals of the given group. Some of these organizations are local affiliates of a national association, but nevertheless strive to satisfy a given objective within their neighborhood. Some are civic, some professional, and some focus on leisure activities, but all are geared toward specific areas of interest. Each, despite differences, has a common thread shared with all others: the dependence upon the membership to move forward.

Why is it, then, that any given group relies upon a minority to do the majority of the work required to accomplish anything? I’d wager that most of you belong to some type of group described above. Do you pay your dues and nothing more? Or do you pay your dues and pitch in to help from time to time? No heroics, necessarily, but every leader needs minions to carry out a mission. Are you ready to step forward and be the minion of the day?

Many are not and I’m damned to understand why they belong to the group in the first place. Perhaps they believe their mere presence provides a positive addition to the organization. And others may have no life outside of the club and maintain a membership for some level of socialization. The former is presumptuous; the latter pathetic.

The needs of any group are simple: ideas from an engaged membership and the man-power to put those ideas into action. Anyone else is dead weight (except for the dues, of course) and serve to limit any hopes of high morale and accomplishment. Everyone knows this, but every group seemingly remains mired in the “minority doing the majority” mentality.

And there is no good way out of this, either. What do you do? Throw someone out because of their lack of participation? Pretty soon, the association no longer exists, does it? There may be a way to prod our non-producers, though. My wife belongs to a horsemen’s group that has monthly meetings and regular trail rides along with special functions throughout the year. Each of these events (save the meetings) is awarded a point value and each member that participates is awarded appropriately. At the end of the year, the top ten point earners are recognized and rewarded with a token gift for their participation. I’ll tell you what: this group is something to envy when it comes to esprit de corps and promoting their agenda.

Maybe this formula might be a good way to incentivize any membership into doing more for the good of the group. True, we’re employing bribery to a point, but the end is still a noble one that may well justify the means. I’m not sure, but I can tell you that, in the case of the horsemen at least, you couldn’t ask for a more engaged membership.

For those of you (us) that join up and join in, good for you (us). And for the rest of you: give me an idea as to why in the world you’re here, sitting beside me with your mouth shut and your hand in your lap. Surely you have something better to occupy your time or sense of duty. It’s pretty obvious you’re not interested in making this group a better place to be.

Some may think my position is a bit harsh. After all, it’s the 21st century and we’re all busy and on and on and on. While I can’t argue that today’s schedules are hectic, I can argue that the tried and true adage of “anything worth doing is worth doing well” still applies, regardless of the date.

What and When

The “what” varies and depends upon that which is being demanded: freedom, rights, equality, wages, and so on. The “when”, however is constant: NOW! Both terms are ever-present in modern demonstrations and while the what may be reasonable, the when may be a polar opposite. Why is that, I wonder. Could it be that we have become so accustomed to instant gratification that we draw parallels from our technological world to matters of society and state where change occurs at a much slower pace?

It all began with the microwave oven, I’d say. Until then, we were all pretty much content to plan ahead when it came to our family life and the requisite meals and entertainment contained therein. All of a sudden, meal planning did not necessarily involve lengthy preparation. Whip it up (or buy it in a box), toss it in the microwave and, voila, dinner! Since that long ago time, we’ve discovered Tivo and other recording devices that enable us to watch TV on our schedule while skipping those pesky commercials. Video on demand adds to our ability to instantly gratify our cravings. And the internet has brought us a veritable endless supply of information and entertainment at the touch of a button.

Is it any surprise that we’ve come to expect what we want right now? The problem lies in the transference of that expectation to realms that do not rely on electrons: society at large and the associated legislative process that leads (hopefully) to progress for us all. The recent Senatorial election in Massachusetts may be a case in point. There can be little doubt that the status quo in the Bay State has been turned ass over tea kettle, but the question should be asked regarding the why?

One explanation could well be that voters didn’t like the Democratic candidate or identified more closely with the Republican who drives a truck. Another could lie in the fact that the Massachusetts medical plan closely resembled the proposed federal overhaul and voters weren’t crazy about expanding a program that has met with debatable success. But it could also be because, after one year in the White House, President Obama has yet to deliver on many (or any) of his campaign’s major promises and it’s time for a change wherever the opportunity presents itself.

The last possibility is the most disturbing to me because it speaks of this instant gratification problem I’ve described above. Is one year enough time to change the course of our ship of state? If so, maybe a Presidential term should be shortened accordingly. Personally, in today’s partisan atmosphere, I’d say that getting anything done in four years would be borderline amazing. No, a one year litmus test on overall effectiveness within the Beltway just ain’t fair.

Neither is the ever-popular “first hundred days”. A new administration and, presto, everything changes? No way, no how. We’re not talking about scrambling electrons into action in a nano-second. We’re talking about elected officials with ingrained philosophies and vested interests in avoiding large scale change. Left or right or middle, it makes no difference: to expect overnight results leads to further frustration and a deeper disenchantment with the political process. We need to be smarter and avoid comparing technological wizardry with the more mundane and time consuming endeavor of reshaping the priorities and policies of the world around us.

Change may be good, but not for the sake of change alone. We need to give our current plan time to sprout and prosper. If, after a reasonable period of time, it doesn’t bear fruit then perhaps we need to think about changing the game plan. But let’s not be too hasty in pulling something out just as it begins to take root. Save your instant gratification for leisure pursuits or food preparation and practice patience on more important matters that have far reaching consequences.

Be Prepared

Watching this week’s coverage of the earthquake in Haiti, I couldn’t help but flash back to New Orleans and the throes it went through in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. How could the aftermath of such disasters be so similar in countries so different?

True, the Haitian government was suspect on its best days and our leadership seems, by and large, to be well equipped to deal with anything that might crop up unexpectedly. Could it be that the only difference is our faith in Washington D.C. and our state or local officials while casting a doubtful eye on other nations? Maybe the same can be said for everyone, regardless of the country, as they trust their leadership.

Both nations (Haiti and the US), in their own way, had departments and officials and contingency plans in place for disasters that might one day come to pass. Let’s say, for the sake of this discussion, that both nations had equally viable mechanisms ready to go at a moment’s notice.

The problem lies within those plans and with those tasked with implementation. Were they deficient in some way? Not necessarily. But they were drawn up within the confines of bureaucratic organizational charts and the associated near-sighted objective of protecting one’s department and employment prospects. To insinuate that anyone could carry out the mandate of “my” organization invites the dissolution of “my” career and I just can’t have that, can I?

So now we have a great plan and great people to carry it out should it ever become necessary. The i’s are dotted and the t’ crossed. And, then: WHAM! Here comes the flood or the fire or the quake or the tsunami or whatever nature might have in store. The damage is widespread and severe. OK, let’s get going with those contingency plans. But wait: where’s the guy who’s going to start the process? We need him for step A before going to step B, but he’s nowhere to be found. And, until we find him, the process simply stops. I know, let’s call him. Ah, the landlines are down and what cell service there is will probably be overwhelmed. Didn’t think about this when we drew up the plan in our nice, air-conditioned office, did we? Combine this with the fact that those depended upon to effect the rescue, etc. may well be victims themselves. The New Orleans police were scarce as officers took care of their families before their citizens. Who can fault them, or anyone else in similar straits, for that? Other lynch-pins could well be among the dead or injured. Basically, command and control are non-existent with little to fill the void.

The Port-au-Prince airport ramp is covered with supplies. The local government, however, has not designated drop-off sites and the aid agencies haven’t set up distribution at those sites because they don’t know where they go yet. And when the sites are finally designated, security must be established to prevent riots and panic. It sounds a lot like the trucks of water and ice to be delivered to New Orleans, but idling in other locations awaiting a specific destination. Reports indicate that today (Sunday) such sites, supplies, and security are initiating operations. The quake occurred last Tuesday.

So here’s the bottom line, I’d say: despite everything your government says to the contrary, should disaster strike, you’re on your own for the foreseeable future. Do not expect water, sustenance, shelter, or medical care of any substantive degree. Folks died in Louisiana awaiting supplies or rescue and the same scenario is playing out in Haiti as I write.

Should we recoil at such a miserable response from those charged to minimize our discomfort in times of disaster? Only at the rosy predictions made by those same folks. San Francisco Bay residents are told to plan on a 72 hour period of self-reliance before aid may be expected to arrive. Well, in the event of a major quake most roads will become impassable. Bridges may become unusable further limiting access to certain areas. Many may be away from their homes should the quake occur during the work day and communication networks would be rendered moot as they become unable to cope with the demand. Seventy-two hours? That’s only three days. How about something more like a week and maybe more as one moves out from population centers.

Why don’t they tell us to plan on a week? Why, that would create some serious questioning over their plans and their effectiveness to serve the public. Wouldn’t it be better to provide a false sense of security so as to maintain the perception of competence and forethought (not to mention the continuation of the paycheck)? In that way, the public would be secure in the thought that everything would be fine until, of course, it wasn’t, and then we could explain why everything went to hell in a hand basket.

It’s happened before within this country and is happening now in Haiti. It has happened elsewhere, too, and there is no reason to believe that your community or your state or your federal government is any better equipped than those that preceded it. It is not inherently good nor bad. It is simply a fact of dealing with disasters. What to do? Be a good Boy Scout: be prepared.