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.  

Not So Bad?

There's not one of us that did not experience a childhood trauma with an observer telling us that it wasn't all that bad. My goblins were hypodermic needles and dentists. And, as I squirmed and howled, my mother would admonish me with, "Oh, come on, it doesn't hurt that much." Excuse me? I'm the one with a needle in my ass or a drill in my mouth so don't try to tell me what it feels like!

But now we're all grown up and beyond such input, aren't we? If only that were true. Today we hear statistics that tell us things cost about as much as they used to and we're in pretty good shape. According to the statisticians, perhaps, but how do you feel about it?

We've got numbers galore extolling low inflation and a reasonably flat consumer price index (CPI). The problem is that you and I both know that our dollars simply are not going as far today. The current behemoth is the price of gasoline. That should come as no surprise since we are a mobile society. As fuel costs go up, our direct financial loss is readily apparent, but other costs go up accordingly because most anything we buy depends upon some sort of transportation. Food prices go up, too, along with just about everything else. Does it matter what the experts are telling us when we're looking for ways to conserve our cash between pay days? Some would call this the higher cost of living which is much harder to quantify than CPI's or inflation rates.

No, the cost of living depends, first of all, on how one defines living. Does it include cigarettes? Or liquor? Or Starbucks? We each have our list of things that we consider essential in our daily lives and the list gets longer as our cash flow increases. That cash flow, though, has stemmed a bit, so the list is getting shorter, but each list is different.

How about a new number that better reflects the daily challenge in making ends meet? Let's call it the "Cost of Essential Service". You're right in seeing that "essential" is a relative term, but I'd bet there are a few things that appear on everyone's personal list. Food, for example. Or housing. And, of course, fuel. These three areas strike me as universal despite the particular menu or address or vehicle.

Each part of the country has its own costs of essential service and these differences need to be factored into the final number. Median home prices and rental rates along with other averaging would create a fairer representation of these costs. Now we have a number that we can use to compare our current location with others. And now we have an answer for those that tell us it's not that bad.

While someone is working on this new number, can someone else tell me what's so shocking about oil executives pleading poverty to Congress? Who wants to pay more tax? And, since employment is such a hot topic these days, what better argument than loss of tax breaks will result in loss of jobs? Remember when restaurant and bar owners warned of impending doom if non-smoking legislation were to pass? No, I'd say oil companies ponying up a bit more to Uncle Sam won't cost anyone a job, but it's a scary thought and that's why they're planting it in our minds.

Meanwhile, Obama is re-thinking drilling opportunities in Alaska and "incentives" to oil companies so they might actually drill on lands where they already possess leases. The proceeds from new drilling won't show up at our gas pumps for decades and "incentives" should eerily similar to tax breaks. Oh, what a politician won't do for better poll numbers.

Enough of financial wonks and the like tut-tutting us about how good we really have it. You know and I know that times are tougher and our dollars don't go nearly as far. Perhaps this essential living index might better illustrate the true state of our financial well-being. It surely couldn't hurt and who'd notice yet another number in the sea of statistics?

Tell Me Why...

At the risk of sounding too much like Andy Rooney (not that such a comparison would be entirely bad), I’ve got a few nagging questions this week. I don’t know about you, but I know I’ll feel better getting them off my chest. Sometimes we have to deal with the fly poop in the pepper before getting back to more serious musings, you know. 

First off, why the brouhaha over the non-release of a dead bin Laden photo? Either you believe he’s dead or you don’t. Look at the Birthers and their continuing doubts in spite of continued statements and evidence to the contrary. Can there be any doubt that similar outcries would follow the release of a picture portraying a bullet-riddled ObL? “Fake! Fraud! Photoshop!” Even al Qaida has acknowledged the passing of their leader, so what would the release of a photo accomplish? (As an aside, it seems as though al Qaida members are more willing to accept reality than the Birthers. Kinda sad, isn’t it?)

And why would we admit that a “treasure trove” of information was confiscated at bin Laden’s home? Why wouldn’t we want to let the bad guys think they’re still cloaked in the security of secrecy while we ferret each and every one of them out of their lairs? Now they’re running for cover in new places and changing their names and appearance and such. Seems like a step backwards to me. Unless, of course, we found nothing and now are creating the impression of being smarter than we really are. 

Moving on, most of us have caller ID on our phones so we know who’s calling before we answer. Why then do many folks answer with “Hello?” instead of “Hi, mom” or dad or whomever? It’s dumb and we’re smarter than that, aren’t we? True, some numbers or names don’t ring a bell, but generally we know who is on the other end of the call and should greet them personally when answering.

And why is so much time spent texting when a conversation takes less time and is more personal. Yes, there are venues where a call would be rude to those in our proximity, but I’d say most choose to text simply to avoid conversation of any kind. And texting at a dinner table in the company of friends is no less rude than talking. Either turn the phone off or move off to a deserted area to conduct your oh-so-important business.

Why do more and more people include the word “actually” into a conversation where it has no meaning? The word infers that we’ve been lied to and an admission is in order or that a misstatement is in need of correction. “Is the boss in?” “Actually, he’s at lunch.”

As opposed to what: theoretically he’s at lunch? Or have you been lying to me and now admit that he is, indeed, out of the office? Either way, it makes no sense and should be relegated to the status of other, more common, sentence fillers as “like” or “uh” or “um” or “er”.

And why are traffic reporters always so happy? Radio or television, it matters not: reports of accidents, gridlock, and any other interminable condition that slows down any hope of timely progress are passed on to us with a smile and a shrug. Maybe it’s because the reporter is in the friendly confines of the studio or blithely passing above the mess in an aircraft. Or maybe the message is softened to assuage our anger over a never-changing traffic problem. Either way, we’re not having fun and should resent the attitude that somehow we should be taking this delay in stride. Perhaps if the conditions didn’t exist every day at the same time, we’d be better able to smile and shrug. But we don’t because it does. I’d be better able to cope if I heard, even one time, “Boy! It sucks out there, folks, and you’d better pack a lunch if you’re heading out today! What the hell is up with our roads?” Now there’s some real-world reporting!

And finally, here’s to those of us who were never all that close to our mother. Yes, it’s Mother’s Day as I write this and I can’t help but envision a large number of folks with guilt over their lack of admiration for the family matriarch. I loved my mother. Hell, she brought me into the world. But I didn’t like her much and there were several periods of estrangement over the years. I bought her the requisite Mother’s Day card, but always picked one with few words and little sentiment. So if you’re in the same boat as I, don’t sweat it. Truth be told, most would admit to something less than enduring harmony with mom (or dad, for that matter). 

I was right: I feel much better having released these questions into cyberspace and beyond. Any similar conundrums in your life? If so, send ‘em my way. If nothing else, I can assure you, yet again, that it’s not just you.

Smoke or Substance?

The Royal family has had its day in the sun and now we can turn back to more serious issues. Or not. Last week, prior to the exchange of vows on Friday, President Obama yet again avowed his nationality by yet again addressing the issue of his birth certificate.

It seems that a small group of folks prefer diatribe over discussion, strife over solution. Short on ideas, they raise issues of little or no consequence that have already been asked and answered. These seemingly innocuous questions pique the interest of a larger group who think “pique” is nothing more than a small dog. Regardless, the media then runs with it because the news cycle has become a 24/7 news circle and electronic editors simply need something, anything, to fill the void. Unconventional media within the blogosphere adds fuel to the fire.

And just like that, the “Birther” movement was born and has flourished despite documentation and assertion to the contrary. As I previously stated, those that raise the original question have nothing else to offer to the conversation. And those that heed the question have limited time to devote to deeper thought. After all, “Dancing With the Survivor” is coming on in ten minutes.

While a minority  of society as a whole (25%) puts any credence into this particular debate, a majority of Republicans (58%) believe or, at least, think Obama was born somewhere outside of the US. Though we may chuckle at such a state of political affairs, closer examination reveals a concern and threat to our two party system.

The Tea Party enjoyed reasonable success in the 2010 mid-term elections and has since pulled the entire Republican Party farther to the right. Primary voters may find this much to their liking, but general elections draw a much more moderate turn-out and this threatens to render the Republican agenda nothing more than an asterisk. 

One need only open a daily newspaper from the last few days to find a plethora of challenges to mankind. Be they natural or man-made, financial, legislative, or societal: I find it hard to believe that a significant portion of any political party would find more pleasure in chasing ghosts than offering real-world ideas in trying to further an essential debate.

Do I subscribe to a right-wing philosophy? Not to a large degree, but I’m also not crazy about an unfettered left-wing ideology steering our ship of state. The value of the two parties is exhibited in the ensuing debate and compromise. It’s hard to debate and compromise with a group more focused on distracting non-issues, though.

Hopefully, the Birthers will accept the fallacies of their argument and move on to more pressing issues. Then again, a new question is taking shape surrounding Obama’s grades prior to his entrance into Harvard. Time will tell if “Schoolers” rise to prominence. I certainly hope they wither on the vine in short order, but cannot claim any confidence in their demise.

It matters not which political philosophy one might prefer. If you are prone to fall for tactics that serve to divert your attention from the matter-at-hand, you are ripe for the front row of the nearest magic act where the charlatan on the stage seeks your attention to the decoy hand while the other is doing the more serious business. Apparently, many today are more eager to delve into sensationalism and subterfuge than material fact and    meatier topics.

Personal opinions of our current leadership should not deter us from seeking a path out of the thicket we currently occupy. Paying attention to detractors for detraction’s sake should insult anyone paying the least little bit of attention to the world around us. Yes, there is a place in our day for regal matrimony and reality television. I’d suggest, though, that we find other concerns that merit a higher position on our priority lists.

Fault Lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unplugged

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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