A Little This...A Little That

Many thoughts have gone through my mind this week, but I could not find a way to turn even one into more than a brief discussion. So how about us taking a brief look at them all, shall we?

The Price of Gas: As the cost per gallon goes up, Obama’s approval goes down. Related? Perhaps. Appropriate? Probably not. Most folks knowledgable about such things spread the blame around. First of all, the US is but a player in the global oil market as China and other developing nations are controlling the price by the amount of oil they require. US consumption is down while domestic production is up. So our ability to affect the market is limited. Add the speculation factor and you tack on what some calculate to be 50 cents a gallon. And before you complain about such gambling on commodity futures, take a look at your investments. Most mutual funds have some of their money in the oil market. So, yes, the price of gas goes up, and, yes, you contribute to it through your “investment” choices. Higher rates of return or lower gas prices: which way to go?

Presidential Powers: Many think the President is omnipotent. They are wrong. The President cannot write a law nor pass a law nor enforce a law. A president can only speak and, through this line of communication, hope to bring associated legislation to reality. Why is it, then, that every candidate for this office experiences numerous stumbles when speaking? Practically every day of the Republican primary process at least one candidate comes out with a “what I meant to say” retraction. These are veteran politicians with teams of handlers and preparers who are paid to avoid such gaffes. Are they filled with hubris? If not, then how can we expect them to do a better job when elected?

Campaign Rhetoric: Promises abound during political campaigning. Shouldn’t there be a penalty for promising things that one cannot deliver upon? Take the abolishment of the new national healthcare laws. A newly elected president cannot simply wave it away on day one yet that is what the Republican hopefuls would like us to believe. How about a financial penalty for such statements with the funds going to the opposing party’s coffers?

The Run Away Law: How about a law that mandates the fleeing from a situation where one feels threatened? Kind of an homage to Monty Python’s Life of Brian: “Run away! Run Away!” It’s no more foolish than the “Stand Your Ground” laws that are now getting a well deserved second look. The last thing we need, I’d say, is armed citizens looking to make up for what is seen as ineffective law enforcement. Just the thought makes me feel threatened!

Pizza: Pizza consists of crust (bread), sauce, and some toppings. Can anyone tell me why breadsticks are offered as a side? Isn’t there enough bread already? And the dipping sauce is the same as what’s on the crust! How about taking a piece of crust and dragging it through the top of the pizza? Voila: a stick of bread and a dipping sauce! And if you need some cinnamon bread sticks for dessert you need to rethink your dietary choices.

Well, I don’t know about you, but I feel better. Not a lot, mind you, but a little. It seems more and more daunting to come to grips with the weekly events of outrage and injustice and insanity. Maybe I need break...

Breaking Point

Hardly a week goes by without hearing of some sort of supposedly random and unexpected violence. Shootings in the workplace or school are more and more common. Most recently, a soldier in Afghanistan killed 16 civilians in a seemingly unprovoked killing spree.

Generally speaking, the perpetrators of these acts are described as normal, more or less, and have no history of such aberrant behavior. My question is whether the behavior represents an illness or merely a symptom of an underlying problem.

First of all, past practice serves no good purpose in trying to explain a sudden shift in temperament. Every killer, rapist, robber, or what-have-you was fine until they weren’t and that first anti-social act, regardless of age, came as more or less of a surprise to those familiar with the individual.

Have you ever snapped? I venture to say yes because we all have come to that “final straw” and reacted somewhat out of our ordinary character: thrown tools, expletives spewn out in abundance, or any other red-faced, fist clenching response to something gone awry. In extreme cases, perhaps a fist through the wall, but most of us have a firmer grip on ourselves and find a way to release the pent up steam without exacting a toll on our physical surroundings.

Others, unfortunately, have reached a point where more moderate methods seem of little use and a higher level of retribution is called for. Now is that because the individual is wired differently than most or simply a stronger response to a more severe set of circumstances is required? No one knows how much can be taken until that point is reached. And then...SNAP...our once normal neighbor is on a mission to inflict great harm. Sometimes that rage is directed against specific individuals and other times it is random. Regardless, the boiling point has been reached and cool, calm logic is replaced by blind, knee-jerk reaction.

Over the past several years, historically well-adjusted folks have found themselves unemployed and underwater in their homes. The ensuing stress causes breakdowns in marriages which only leads to more despair and more stress. The GI accused of the 16 Afghan deaths was on his fourth tour to the Middle East, the previous three to Iraq. Let that sink in: the FOURTH tour! I cannot picture a more stressful situation than surviving in a war zone for one tour or maybe two, but three? Or, god forbid, four? It has been reported that his marriage was also in trouble. Gee, I can’t, for the life of me, figure out why.

Yes, these folks are sick, but from what affliction? Is it an internal disconnect brought on by some genetic predisposition or could it be from the ever-increasing sense of hopelessness as they watch their aspirations for today and tomorrow crumble around them? From the teen who’s bullied to the battle-hardened veteran: perhaps they found themselves at a tipping point where right was wrong and good was evil. In this topsy-turvy world without structure, all things become equally plausible and I’d suggest that, in these cases, those who create victims are victims themselves.

It doesn’t take a military master-mind to decide that four combat tours are at least two too many. Yet we will now hear of studies exploring that hypothesis (at least until the furor abates). And, in the meantime, soldiers will be rotated through numerous combat deployments. Recognizing unacceptable levels of the crap heaped upon us by society, however, is harder to predict. 

Don’t get me wrong: acts of this nature can be neither excused nor condoned. Let us agree, though, to consider the greater scheme of things as we try to explain their root causes. As the world gets smaller and faster, the demands placed upon us seem to grow by the day making it harder to find that ray of sunshine through the clouds of disappointment and disillusion. And, as a result, the breaking point for many of us may be but a heartbeat away.

The Dreaded 10%

It’s only Wednesday as I write this, but I’m sure that nothing of greater import will arise between now and Sunday. Sarah Palin could run away with Newt Gingrich (sorry, Callista) to form a blockbuster ticket and even that would not sway me from my present frame of mind. I’m talking about the infamous 10%. You know: the portion of any project that consumes 90% of the time to complete it. I’m writing this in the first person to avoid using the word “you”, but you know as well as I that you’ve been there, too.

I’m not fond of hills, other than looking at them. I don’t like running on them nor walking on them for an inordinate distance. Needless to say, I don’t care much for working on them, either. Yet I live in the Sierra foothills! My property’s topography is what a real estate agent would call “rolling”. That’s a marketing term for “you’d better get in shape, Bucko”.

And most of my hills support a variety of oak trees. Some are grand while others are gnarled, growing almost sideways in search of sunlight. Over time, I’ve taken some of these trees down. Then I cut the thinner branches, etc. off and create burn piles. This takes some time as I usually convince myself that it will be easier when the leaves die. This is a lie and I know it’s a lie when I think it. Nevertheless, I wait for a more opportune time to limb and drag into a pile.

Meanwhile, the parts of the tree destined for my firewood supply sit on the hillside awaiting some day in the dim future when they will be dragged down the hill, cut up into manageable size, and stacked properly. This portion generally amounts to that 10%. As this week’s column idea came to me, I thought it only proper that I got down on one particular hillside and drag, push, pull, throw, or carry the wood to the bottom where I could use my chain saw without fear of losing my balance or an appendage.

The problem is that when I get to this 10% of the greater project, it expands to  a 100% proposition. This allows me to negotiate with myself so I can quit, yet again, without attaining the Mission Complete merit badge. But try as I might to find a reason to quit, I saw this task through to the bitter end. Maybe because I knew I’d have to own up to yet another delay before posting this piece.

And I’m not done yet! The wood now lies at the bottom of the hill, mocking me as if it is anxious to be burned. Since my fire wood supply is dwindling and spring is not quite in the air, I fully expect to render the larger sections into wood-stove ready pieces before the week is out.

I think we all suffer from ADD when it comes to projects. Even minor household honey-do’s end up with the tools on the kitchen counter instead of back on the work bench in the garage. We’ll get to that, you know, but not right now. Maybe when we need that tool for the next project (if we can remember where we left it from the last one).

I hate that last 10%. It reminds me that no chore is ever done, no matter how hard I try. Or, to be more precise, no matter how hard I don’t try because there’s something else I need to do over here (oh, look: a squirrel!). So there you have it: the last, dreaded 10% that sometimes never gets done. And, if it does, it’s not in any kind of timely manner. Armed with this information, you’d think I could do better. I don’t. Maybe I will, but I doubt it. Maybe it’s just a law of nature. Or just one of many human failings. Either way, can any political or corporate headline trump this gem of knowledge? I think not...

(Addendum: it is now Sunday afternoon as I post this. No, the woodpile at the bottom of the hill has not been completely dealt with, but I think I’m down to the last 10%.)

Devastation

It was hard to miss reports of this past week’s carnage as severe storms and tornadoes tore through sections of the country. Some communities were destroyed while others experienced less destruction. Nevertheless, most of those affected, be they individuals, neighborhoods, or whole cities used the word “devastation” in describing the effects of the storms. And appropriately so, I’d say, in light of the after-effects.

Unfortunately, such devastation occurs regularly at the hand of less unpredictable forces as Mother Nature. In these cases, the lives and expectations of individuals are dashed as their employers find it easier to abrogate than accommodate. Two of the most recent examples are American Airlines and the city of Stockton, California.

You may have heard of Stockton if you follow the foreclosure mess as it has made an inauspicious name for itself as having the second highest rate in the nation. As homes foreclosed, other home values decreased and city coffers drained quicker than they could be refilled with tax revenue. The city is now preparing for a bankruptcy filing. American Airlines (my professional alma mater) filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection on November 29 of last year. (At that time, the company had more than 4 billion dollars in the bank.)

While one entity is a municipality and the other a corporation, their thinking is eerily similar: utilizing the courts to renege on promises made to their respective constituencies and customers in the past. Both signed contracts with their employees and vendors that now, apparently, are inconvenient to honor. Times are tough and there is no time left to renegotiate more affordable terms so why not go to the bankruptcy court and just throw them out?

These scenarios are just the latest of many and did not happen overnight. In some cases, contractual benefits were based upon unrealistic cash flow assumptions while others involved management teams that had so polluted the atmosphere of cooperation that negotiation was out of the question. Stockton falls into the first category while AA falls into the second.

Think back to the UAW contracts signed with the Big 3 auto manufacturers. To guarantee life-long pensions and health care to an ever growing retiree base while funding that promise by a fixed (or lesser) number of employees is bound to fail at some tipping point. Public employee unions have found similar largesse in their contracts with cities that was predicated on an ever-growing cash stream from tax revenues. With the housing crash, that money has stopped flowing.

I can’t help but think that every principal involved in these agreements knew that someday this house of cards would come crashing down, but they also knew that they’d be on a beach somewhere when it did. Politicians and union chiefs alike were rewarded with re-election and life was good. Until the train came off the tracks, that is.

In 2003 American Airlines negotiated significant reductions in pay and benefits with their unionized employees. It rallied support under the banner of “Pull Together, Win Together” and, in so doing, avoided the trip into bankruptcy. As the balance sheet improved, however, the 2003 contracts remained in force while upper management began to receive yearly bonuses. Instead of unilaterally improving the contracts, management seemed to ignore their previous mantra and concentrated in creating machinations that increased their annual “performance” payoff when, in fact, the airline’s performance was mired near the bottom of most categories. This attitude has resulted in an employee group deaf to pleas of “we need your help now” and “you’re important to us”.

As I stated earlier, these two examples are far from the first and, more than likely, far from the last. Even Social Security is threatened without tweaking due to the same tipping point in number of beneficiaries versus wage earners paying into the system. In each and every case, though, the results are the same: devastation.

Present day and future plans are thrown onto the rocks as paychecks and pensions are reduced and eliminated. Spouses return to the workforce to make up for some of the shortfall. Children find themselves leaving private schools for public ones and reconsidering their options for higher education. Retirement planning can be put off, of course, because many find that they can no longer retire at an age that once seemed affordable. Ironically, many of the perpetrators maintain their positions despite the fact that they were at the helm when the ship hit the reef. Funny how that works, huh?

While seeing my home destroyed by a tornado or earthquake or forest fire is devastating on many fronts, I’d find it infinitely harder to take a corporate or civic failure in stride. We all know that the forces of nature are whimsical and random. Our corporate and political leaders, on the other hand, should be capable of recognizing the hazards of their enterprise and avoiding them. And if they don’t, I would expect that they experience a similar fate as those under their supervision.

Pranksters and Pollsters

Tuesday is supposedly a big day for the Republican presidential hopefuls as yet another round of primaries takes place. Don’t get me wrong...primaries, in and of themselves, are not a bad thing. After all, they allow for the winnowing of candidates as voters select their best choice from the field of wannabes.

But the media circus surrounding each primary and each participant is enough to turn even the staunchest political junkie to rehab. Speeches are parsed, venues are second-guessed, and (worst of all) polls are conducted so you and I have up to the minute information on who might be ahead. We have little control over the hordes of reporters that descend upon a given state approaching its primary, but we have complete control over the polling process. How? By choosing our answers.

A stranger comes up to you (or calls) and asks for your opinion regarding the upcoming primary’s issues, candidates, and what-have-you. And your answers are tossed in with everyone else’s to concoct a number that is fed to all listeners and viewers. Why do we answer this stranger honestly? Is it because this moment represents a portion of our 15 minutes of fame? Could it be the microphone? Who knows for sure and who cares? It just strikes me odd that many of us fib or stretch the truth or even flat-out lie in any given day (politicos call that spinning). We’re all so honest, though, with pollsters.

So, as we approach Super Tuesday (a week from tomorrow) let me offer suggestion: should any pollster ask you any question, fib...or stretch the truth...or flat-out lie! Think of the fun when the polls fail to accurately predict the winner. And the hilarity when important issues swing from the ridiculous to the sublime. We’ve lost nothing since the vote will be what it turns out to be and we’ve perhaps gained by watching to see if a candidate starts espousing views in line with “perceived” issues.

If the polls become untrustworthy, two things happen (and they’re both good): firstly, polls start to go away and, when they do, we are spared the incessant update of “numbers” along with a myriad of questions lobbed in our direction. Secondly, the electorate is forced to become more informed as we are denied viable front-runner predictions. Face it: many voters like to vote for the winner while thinking that any other choice wastes their vote. Nothing could be farther from the truth nor more destructive to our electoral process.

All of a sudden, watching the results is not only newsworthy, but entertaining as projected winners (based on exit polls) finish last while also-rans come out ahead. Think of it: voting results that reflect reality rather than conjecture. And we did it all by ourselves. If you want to see a new political dynamic this may be a great first step. And all we have to do is a little “spinning.

Put Up or Shut Up

Amid the cacophony of “smaller government...less spending” the New York Times recently ran two articles dealing with who, in fact, receives any kind of assistance from the government. One dealt with financial demographics (lower, middle, and upper income brackets) while the other concentrated on a political breakdown. While I usually avoid going over ground already plowed, I’d like to take a closer look at who, politically-speaking, reaps rewards from so-called social programs.

Many opponents of federal assistance have united under the Tea Party banner. They appear regularly on the airwaves or in print and their message is consistent: get the government out of my life, let me take care of myself, and lower my taxes. We’re each afforded our opinion and this one has taken center-stage as the Republican Party seeks a nominee for the fall election.

Call me old fashioned, or naive perhaps, but it seems to me that anyone opposing these assistance programs would be the last one to sign up for any of them. After all, we know the difference between talking the talk and walking the walk. It turns out that many of these full throated “leave me alone” folks do, indeed, sip from the governmental trough while other same-minded folks gulp down every bit that might be available. Talk about mixed messages!

There are two possible explanations for such a dichotomy between philosophy and behavior. One is hypocrisy and the other is ignorance. I’m not crazy about hypocrites, but ignorance scares the hell out of me. Especially when applying it to the electorate.

I’ve written about folks who want to take someone else’s freebie away while protecting their own. It only makes sense, you know, because mine is important and I am deserving while yours is a waste and you’re a lay-about. And that’s why I’m supporting my candidates because they will take yours away while maintaining mine. How do I know? Because they promised to cut the waste and we all know that yours is wasteful and mine isn’t.

And that, I dare say, is about the most ignorant rationale I’ve come across. But guess what? It works! How do you think Tea Party activists were elected in the mid-terms of 2010? Somehow, they continue to hold sway in spite of the fact that, if given the chance, they’d cut all programs for everyone regardless of need.

It’s no secret that the Republican Party has evolved into a group looking for a social agenda with which to stoke the visceral fires of its base. Gay marriage, abortion, birth control, and the like seek to obscure the fact that the party is really aligned more with corporate America than those it pretends to represent: the God-fearing, family loving Joe and Jane Citizen living somewhere in the heartland. Sadly, Joe and Jane have eaten up this rhetoric despite the fact that they fall farther and farther behind. This is called voting against your own best interests and the right has capitalized upon this phenomenon to a far greater degree than the left.

Assistance programs are designed for those that require a helping hand, but many take advantage of the program simply because they qualify. Regardless of political affiliation, this is just plain wrong and everyone pays in one way or another for such behavior. Granted, some assistance is all or nothing. Perhaps some recipients don’t need the full amount, but I don’t recall hearing of anyone paying excess funds forward to a charity or another individual in need. No, anything extra goes toward discretionary purchases.

And for anyone railing against federal assistance programs: the only program you are required to participate in is Social Security. Should you take one more dime from any government agency for any other reason whatsoever you need to shut your pie-hole. You might be a hypocrite, you might be ignorant, you might be both. But you sure as hell have no business in claiming to loath a system in which you participate. You may well continue to vote against your own best interests, but at least the thinking voters will not have to listen to your drivel.

And for those of you practicing what you preach: good for you. At least you show some conviction. Keep in mind, though, that one’s fortunes can turn in a moment. With that in mind, a word of caution that is older than the original Tea Party: be careful what you wish for.

Full Circle

As we age, we find previously outdated items coming back into vogue. Paisley ties, for instance. I can remember wearing them in high school (late 1960’s) along with paisley shirts. There may have even been paisley pants, but I’m pretty sure I never wore a pair. Countless other examples can be found in music and movies. Some things, though, don’t make a comeback. I’m thinking that the telephone, or at least its influence, is on the wane.

If you’re over 50 you can recall party lines and the “wonder” of long-distance calling. Your grandparents may have had a two piece phone or maybe even the old one piece with a crank on the side that hung on the wall. The telephone. What a wonder.

In earlier times one had to rely on hand-written letters from family members to stay connected and business correspondence, while centered on the typewrite, had to similarly rely on the postman. The advent of the telephone brought up to the minute news from far away that included items missing from the written word: inflection and emotion. The ringing of a phone conjured up imminent greetings from afar and household members would race to be the first to hear from the other end of the line.

Over the past twenty years or so, the phone has evolved from a beloved part of everyone's day into something to be avoided. Caller ID became the norm as we wanted to know who in the hell was calling before we committed to a simple “hello”. And email made it possible to avoid any conversation without going back to writing, stamping, and mailing letters.

Texting is now considered to be the accepted form of communication complete with a whole new lexicon. No superfluous letters or thoughts. Terse and pretty much unemotional, texting has been adopted by much of society as the best way to reach out and touch someone. Parents have gone so far as to say that they text because it is the only way to communicate with their kids. This leads me to wonder who the parent really is, but I’ll leave that discussion for another time.

So, within in the last sixty years or so, we’ve gone from a reasonably isolated society to one that was better connected by the telephone to our current state where we choose to remain isolated by relying, once again, on the written word. It has become our choice rather than a necessity and it speaks volumes (pun intended).

I’ve often diagnosed society’s ills as resulting from a failure to share our convictions with others. In so doing, we adapt them to new information or adopt others. Our conviction feeds directly to our expectations and, if they are high, we expect more from our environment. And that is generally a good thing. Without high expectations the quality of our lives slowly, yet surely, declines as we recite the “it could be worse” and “at least I have a something-or-other” mantras.

Sending an email or text does not spell disaster for society, but using it as a first choice of communication won’t do us much good. Last week, I was at my computer and received an email from an old friend. I replied and received a reply almost immediately. OK, so he knows I’m home and available, but he continues to rely on his keyboard rather than dialing my number. (I replied once more, but refrained from a subsequent one to his next note.) Why didn’t I pick up my phone? Well, he initiated the “conversation” so I left it to him to decide. We both lost out though, I’d say, on the chance of a side note or segue into another topic. We didn’t share a laugh or a sigh or anything else of merit. A simple exchange of words with nothing added. Sad.

I can live with paisley going back out of style, but I mourn the continued erosion of our desire to hear another human voice and share thoughts and ideas different than our own. How else do we grow and adapt to the ever changing world around us?

Harry Chapin’s trademark song was “Circle” in which he described all things as coming ‘round again. I can’t help but see the old rotary dial on telephones of another era in thinking of never-to-be-had chats and the realization that this may be one instrument destined for obscurity.