A Shaggy Dog Story

The shaggy dog in question is Rocky, a Belgian Malinois. OK, shaggy may be a bit of an overstatement, but the rest of this story is the truth. Rocky was in Afghanistan, employed by the US Army as a land mine detection dog. His job was to locate IED’s before a soldier found one with a boot and his longevity speaks to his ability.

Unfortunately, Rocky developed glaucoma and suffered a detached retina in one eye. As a result, the Army “retired” him from the force. But there was a rub: military working dogs are considered equipment and, as such, do not enjoy a free ride back to the states when their service is complete. As a matter of fact, the military has the option of putting dogs down that fall into this category.

CDH International is a world-wide, self-funded charity (CDHInternational.org). Among it’s many efforts is bringing dogs like Rocky back home. This is anything but an easy chore due to endless red tape, bureaucratic “not-my-job” clerks, and other obstacles. Finding airlift outside of military craft usually entails large sums of money for chartering and “handling charges” (others might refer to this as extortion, bribery, and so on).

In this particular case, CDH reached out to the Puppy Rescue Mission (ThePuppyRescueMission.org), another charitable effort to reunite soldiers with the many strays they had adopted while serving in the war zones. Chandi (from CDH) and Michelle (from PRM) collaborated in getting Rocky to Los Angeles last week.

In the meantime, they had posted his photo on Facebook in the hopes of finding him a “forever home”. This posting was seen by Jason, a retired Sheriff’s deputy in Northern California. Jason was a canine officer and paired with another Malinois also named Rocky. In quick succession, Jason was involved in two events involving an armed suspect. One had a knife and the other a handgun. Rocky was instrumental in minimizing the harm to his handler, but Jason was medically retired after the shooting.

Rocky, on the other hand was still available for duty. Normally, when a canine retires his handler is able to purchase the dog for a dollar. In this case, Jason would have had to pony up $3500 and having just lost his job could not spare the funds. Needless to say, Jason quickly responded to the post and offered to adopt the “new” Rocky. 

Last Tuesday I received a call from Michelle. I am a volunteer pilot for Pilots n Paws (PilotsnPaws.org) and she found my bio on their website. Since I am in Northern California, too, she thought that I might be able to help in getting Rocky from LA to NorCal. Having a Malinois myself, I was all too happy to assist, but didn’t have the availability to go all the way to LA to pick him up. Mike, another Pilots n Paws volunteer pilot, offered to pick Rocky up and deliver him to San Luis Obispo, on the central California coast.. In the meantime, Jason would drive to my airport and we would fly down to San Luis to make the exchange.

So last Friday that is exactly what happened. Jason and I were waiting on the ramp at the San Luis Obispo Jet Center when Mike, his daughter, and Rocky arrived. The meet and greet was one of those “goose-bump” moments. The “new” Rocky was almost a twin to Jason’s ex-partner and I thought for sure that Jason would begin to cry when they met.

The flight back was conducted with Jason and Rocky occupying the back seats. You see, Rocky, as most others of his breed, is what we call high energy. That means they can get into mischief in a New York minute and the last thing I needed to explain to my airplane partner was the chewed up back seats. All went well, though, and we landed without any interior damage.

As I write this, Rocky is settling into his new home with Jason and his family. The end? Maybe, if we include the happily-ever-after part, but that’s not today’s point. You see, I’ve often been critical of the time wasted on social networking, but now I’m not so sure.

My story brought six principals together. Five folks and one dog that knew nothing of the others until cyberspace united them for one common cause. And now those lives have been forever changed. And that is nothing to sneeze at.

I guess that since the beginning of time there were those that under-appreciated the true value of the latest and greatest invention of the day. So why be surprised that the social network is no different? While many idly text and tweet while conjuring up only the simplest, most menial thoughts, others see the possibility of unfettered communication and use it to advance noble causes that otherwise would fall by the wayside. Take the Arab Spring, for instance. Or Rocky.

I’ve received some comments as of late regarding a recent post in which I lamented how people have evolved little over the past 500 years, or so. Maybe I was too hard on mankind. Maybe there is hope for a world where wealth is invested in causes far beyond personal gain and political differences give way to a common interest in making our world a better place. Rocky and his many advocates sure made a believer out of me.

(And should you be as outraged as I in learning of the fate in store for retired canine forces abroad, let your representatives know about it.)

Mixed Nuts

How about a few independent topics with one common element: nuts!

While Syria is mired in, for all intents and purposes, a civil war, Russia and China continue to oppose any UN resolution for a cease fire. Are they nuts? Of course not. You see, they know that should their citizens decide to oppose the established government they’d be ready to open fire upon them, too. At least they’re honest, but if you think they’ll ever get behind such an idea you’re nuts.

Folks continue to moan about the high cost of air travel. Adjusted for inflation, it is about the only item that hasn’t kept pace. Bad management decisions resulted in over capacity which resulted in fare wars. And low fares were subsidized by employees through concessions or bankruptcy courts. That wasn’t enough, though, so now your ticket price includes a seat, period. Other “amenities” are offered, but as additional charges (nuts are still free). We know this as “a la carte pricing” and the airlines are raking in big bucks as a result. So much so that hotels are considering individual utility meters in each room. In that way, we’ll pay for our water and electricity on usage rather than having such “luxuries” bundled into the room rate. Nuts? Maybe, but don’t be surprised if it comes to pass.

You’re nuts if you think that the realism in today’s movies and video games does not allow the nuts within our society to dream up nightmare scenarios similar to the one recently played out in Aurora, Colorado. The connection may not be a direct link, but one does feed the other to be sure. And anyone who thinks that banning assault weapons somehow infringes on our Second Amendment rights is equally nuts. We don’t need them for hunting or household protection and we sure as hell don’t need them in the hands of other nuts looking to make a name for themselves.

And, on a related note, you’re nuts if you think that either political party will consider the limiting of assault weapons. They’re not nuts, necessarily, but they both know that some in the NRA are. And those nuts vote! So don’t count on any changes from our supposed leaders anytime soon.

If your city is financially strapped and reducing the numbers of cops, firemen, and other municipal service providers to save money you’re nuts if you think that will help. Who would want to move into an area with little or no police or fire protection? Conversely, everyone that can get out of town is doing so. And the city leaders that support such moves? You can bet your ass they don’t live in town or, if they do, are looking to move in the near future. Such plans to meet expenses result in nothing but the continued decay of the community and an ever deepening financial hole.

Oh, and if you think that airline pilots never take a 10 minute power nap during cruise, you’re really nuts!

Living in the Past

I’ve returned safely from a two week sojourn abroad and, after three restless nights, have finally readjusted to my local time zone. Most of the time away was spent on a Rhine River cruise from Basel, Switzerland to Amsterdam. The Rhine is replete with castles and, while most of my fellow passengers delved into their historic significance, I found myself focusing on something altogether different. (What a surprise, huh?)

Back in those days of old a castle was, indeed, a fortress. Most contained a moat and were built on higher terrain with limited access to their front gates. These locations and their accouterments were not by accident, you know. It seemed that most folks were hated by most other folks and so, to protect what was theirs, they constructed these fortified “homesteads”. Turrets, battlements, and gun ports were erected to fend off would-be invaders.

Even then, I thought, everyone with wealth concentrated on keeping it from others. And when they weren’t doing that, they concentrated on how to gain more wealth from others. One would think that over the past five hundred years or more the human race would have evolved a bit. Apparently, it hasn’t.

The only thing that has significantly changed is the technology employed to keep our stuff safe from other ne’er-do-wells interested in acquiring it. Moats have gone the way of gated communities, privacy walls, and electronic security systems. The limited access  feature remains and still ends up at a gate of some kind (possibly with a sentry). And I’d venture to say that we are every bit as paranoid as our ancestors in devising ways to keep our riches safe while thinking of ways to get our hands on more. Guns and cannons are no longer required as they once were. Now we use computers and complicated investment schemes to enrich our coffers.

Yes, I generalize, but a glance at any daily newspaper proves my point. I cannot think of one facet of our society that has not betrayed the trust it once enjoyed: government, church, education, banking, and business to name just a few have an abundance of anecdotal evidence pointing to scandal and the attempt to cover-up or carry out plans to either maintain wealth or create even more surreptitiously.

If mankind has not gotten past the practices of medieval times, then what hope can we have for the problems facing us today? Any leader who wants to maintain control fully realizes that hope is the key ingredient in maintaining calm among the masses. Without it revolution is sure to occur. Today in this country the hope of advancement through working hard and being recognized appropriately has given ground to overnight success stories of lottery winners and reality TV celebrities. Do you think this is by accident? I don’t.

After all, it’s about the only dream most of us can lay claim to anymore. Many have no job at all and others are so terrified of losing one that they fall prey to the unreasonable demands of their bosses. Not much hope for that to improve anytime soon so we might as well dwell on how we’ll spend our lottery winnings. It’s something, anyway.

We look to our leaders to make things better by challenging the status quo. But that is the last thing they want to do because the status quo guarantees them of a continued flow of wealth and power. They’d be nuts to consider that or think with a grander vision than their own advancement. And there’s the problem: for over three years I have encouraged the thought of corporate conscience and the like and, until I saw the castles of the Rhine up close and personal, I thought it was a possibility.

No longer, though. And that saddens me for if we cannot have faith in those who lead there is no reason for them to do so. And so, instead, they continue to laud the good old USA as the last shining example of society on the world. “We’re number 1”, they chant as we chant along. Only, though, if we’re talking about defense spending or incarceration rates. We’re not number 1, folks, and haven’t been for a good while. But it makes us feel good in the absence of any substantive change in our lives, doesn’t it? Kind of like the citizens of ancient Rome in its last days of glory, perhaps.

“Where’s the ray of sunshine?” you might ask. After all, I usually find one straw to grasp. Not today, though. Nope, I’m left with a feeling of helplessness because I’ve held fast to the concept that the human race can rise up and do great things. Maybe we still can, but as wrapped up as we are in scandal and partisanship I think it will take either major upheaval outside of established institutions or some other external stimulus. We don’t have the power to change things and those that do don’t want to. Except, of course, in providing the perception that they want to. And that provides cold comfort as prospects for improvement grow dim.

So here I sit wondering why I continue to hold out hope for deliverance through established methods when I’m no longer dealing with the mindset of folks, but rather their DNA seemingly unchanged over the past few eons. We’ve all seen the tee shirt that says “SSDD” (Same shit, different day). I can now visualize one that says “SSDC”: Same shit, different century.

The World As It Could Be

Do you remember the television series “The West Wing”? If so, do you remember the feeling of optimism wash over you in witnessing politics as it could be? Well, Aaron Sorkin is at it again with HBO’s “Newsroom”. I watched the first episode last night and feel the same waves of wistfulness in witnessing news as it could be.

There’s nothing wrong with such nostalgic emotions, you know. How can we envision a better tomorrow without tying that vision to some quixotic crusade? What’s wrong with a world of “us” instead of “you” and “me”? Or a world where leaders share a common goal of the advancement of our society as a whole? Impossible? I think not, although unrealistic might apply in the realm of today’s events.

But we have to start somewhere and where better than a television program where ideals outweigh pragmatic agendas. And profanity is allowed, to boot! I urge you to watch this show regardless of your political persuasion. It could well cause you to reflect on a time in this country when we did great things rather than resting on our laurels. For those without access to HBO, episodes can be downloaded. Please?

OK, that’s it for now...short and sweet. The next two weeks are filled with traveling abroad so you won’t be hearing from me until my return. Something tells me that little will have changed thus providing ample fodder for my future musings.

Much Obliged

“Much obliged” is a term that historically refers to a statement made by someone receiving a favor from someone else. It infers that the first person is now obliged to return the favor at some future point in time.

I’m going to bend that phrase a bit by interpreting the “obliged” as an obligation (or promise) made by one person (or entity) to another. And the more numerous the obligations the more appropriate to use the word “much”.

The public and private sectors alike have made promises to those they employ to ensure an uninterrupted effort in providing a particular service. You know the drill: pay, benefits, and so on. And a big part of the benefits package was the pension that all the worker bees could plan on receiving after dedicating a career to the Golden Goose.

It has now become almost ordinary to read that some company or municipality has chosen to abrogate those pension promises through the bankruptcy courts or, at least, the threat of such legal action. And you know this drill, too: “We can no longer guarantee lifetime payments to an ever expanding number of retirees when our workforce has remained stagnant or decreased.”

Economically, it makes sense. But an obligation is an obligation, isn’t it? Apparently not and the biggest source of angst is the fact that both sides (labor and management/politico) knew that it was unsustainable when they signed it! And they also knew that they would both be lounging on a beach somewhere when the house of cards came crashing down. And, in an effort to make up the shortfall, those charged with keeping the pension funds reasonably secure chose to invest in riskier opportunities that resulted in even greater losses when the bubble burst.

“Well, it serves labor right, you know. I’m not a union person, anyway.” Yet another opinion voiced all too often today. But our system is rife with similar obligations: how about Social Security? Or Medicare? These, too, are unsustainable as more retirees look to a shrinking workforce to fund the promises made in the past.

No, we all have a seat on this boat regardless of our age, income, or social standing. But what to do about it? Well, the popular thing is the aforementioned bankruptcy option for corporate America while city, state, and federal legislators seek to redefine and readjust obligations that they no longer care to honor. Bankruptcy, too, is in their bag of options and we have seen cities waltz down the aisle to that tune, too. And that’s bad for a number of reasons.

First of all, many folks have planned their lives around the promise of a set amount of dollars coming in every month. They’re not greedy nor selfish. They simply operated in good faith and expect that the quid will appear for their quo. Now, at the last possible moment, that revenue stream may be curtailed if not eliminated altogether.

In addition, and perhaps more important, a message is sent that past promises can be ignored when times change. “Kings X...and my fingers were crossed, to boot!” How can we expect the next generation to have any grasp of integrity or ethics when they watch their elders routinely disregard pacts that were made in good faith, but ignored when it became expedient? And we wonder why the kids today seem to have no respect for established institutions or figures of authority.

While pension obligations and such should still be adhered to, the fact remains that the systems under which they exist must be altered. Forward thinking leaders in the private sector (both labor and management) have recognized this and adopted new agreements that provide for limits on pensions while offering self-funding options. Different? Yes. Not as lucrative? Perhaps. But, if given enough advance notice, manageable. So we grandfather everyone within, say, 10 years of retirement and then slowly reduce the guarantees available to the younger workers. Graduated through the ranks of the workforce, significant cost reductions can be achieved without cutting the legs out from underneath anyone.

The public sector, unfortunately, relies on political will (i.e. leadership) for such changes to the various pension provisions and social programs. Such leadership has been in short supply of late and the political polarization we currently see gives little hope for progress.

Answer this for me: in any given stalemate with your spouse or your kids or your boss has a mutually agreeable solution ever been found in one of the extreme views held by one participant? I doubt it. No, the answer generally lies somewhere in the middle. No one can declare outright victory, but no one is left holding only shitty end of the stick, either. Compromise, in other words.

Maybe instead of voting for far left or far right candidates, we should seek out those residing more to the middle of the road. They are the ones most prone to find a reasonably amicable solution to the financial challenges faced by every citizen. We’ve all got a dog in this fight, folks. Let’s remember the myriad of obligations while finding ways to adapt to tomorrow’s reality. Unless, of course, you’re not interested in progress. Then just stand in your corner, holding your breath, and giving the guy in the opposite corner the finger. That should solve our problems now, shouldn’t it?

De-Sensitivity Training

This is a column from March 13, 2011 that mysteriously disappeared.  A reader pointed that out, so here it is: 


As I arrived at my jet for a departure last week, one of my Flight Attendants asked me if I would like a Brazilian soda. He showed me a can that I didn’t recognize and I assumed it was left over from an international flight. With my tongue firmly in cheek, I said, “No, I try to avoid drinking anything from third world countries”. Several minutes later, he took me aside and told me that he was offended by my comment as he was from a third world country.

Rather than pursue the matter, I stated that no offense was intended and moved on. My company, much like most others, has created an offense-free work environment where almost anyone can claim umbrage at almost anything said, regardless of the tone or context. With a relatively short time before reaching my retirement date, I chose discretion over valor in letting his remark go unchallenged.

But this venue is anything but offense-free, so allow me to vent a bit and offer a counter strategy to blunt the ever-encroaching politically correct police. First of all, Brazil is far from a third world country: it is the 8th largest economy in terms of GDP and the 7th when comparing purchasing power. If my flight attendant friend took his offense based on his Brazilian roots, he needs to take a bit more pride in his heritage. If, on the other hand, he hails from another country that doesn’t enjoy such a high degree of success, how am I to know? Once again, without further discussion, nothing is learned and no one is better served. He considers me an insensitive prick and I see him as a hyper-sensitive pain in the ass suffering from a shortage of self-esteem.

So be it, but what can be done to stymie such exchanges? I propose a new organization: the NAAYP, or the National Association for the Awareness of You People. That’s right: you people. You see, to everyone else, I qualify as “you people”. The categorization could be one of many traits: ethnicity, religion, skin color, income status, political affiliation. The list is endless. Regardless, I am “you people” to others just as they are “you people” to me. So what’s so great about the NAAYP?

Well, the first benefit is the slow realization that everyone has preconceived notions about most everyone else in one form or another and most of these notions are false. Rather than hold them in, let’s share them with our friends. “You people sure know how to drink.” “Why don’t you people learn to take better care of yourselves?” “The world would be a better place if you people knew how to get along.” Or, with a sigh and a shrug, “You people...!”

It wouldn’t take very long before we started laughing at such observations instead of reacting with pretended offense and haughty indignation. And, in so doing, we’d eventually get over ourselves and accept each other with a bit more understanding and less resentment. Would “you people” then disappear from our lexicon? No, unfortunately, there will always be “you people” in the form of nay-sayers and such. But their numbers will be less and they will continue to offer comedic relief for the rest of us folks. 

Finally, when we’ve achieved this new level of interaction and awareness, we could change the name of our group to the NAAWP: the National Association for the Advancement of We People. We people are all a bit different, but we all share common traits that should be embraced rather than emphasizing differences to exploit and shun. We people all bring unique qualities to the table of humanity and, once recognized, we can achieve great things together. 

Learn From Thy Neighbor

Picture, if you will, your back yard. And there you are standing in the middle of it. You are surrounded by fertilizer and grass seed. Bermuda grass seed, to be exact. You intend to spread the fertilizer and sow the seeds in the hope of enjoying a lush and robust lawn come next summer.

You casually look over the fence into your neighbor’s back yard and notice that it is in great need of repair. Coincidentally, he, too, has planted Bermuda grass, but it is not flourishing. Rather, it has died in spots while others are marginal, at best. This strikes you as odd because the rest of the grounds look wonderful. Could it be that Bermuda grass simply does not do well in your area?

Now picture yourself spreading the fertilizer and planting the Bermuda grass seed as originally intended. “What? Am I nuts?” you ask. And rightfully so. Who would maintain a course of folly in the face of less-than-hoped-for results? Well, it looks like we would, economically speaking, at least.

Our political debate currently revolves about the best way to reinvigorate the economy. One side (the Right) maintains that austerity alone will bring about prosperity. They reason further that, as the deficit is reduced and tax rates are kept low confidence will return, companies will hire, and all will be well. The other side (the Left) argues that what is needed now is a combination of more government spending and higher tax rates. Then, as good times return, the deficit can be addressed as more money flows into the federal coffers.

Which one is right? How do we know? Well, it turns out that we have a neighbor with experience in such things (just like those in our Bermuda grass analogy): Europe. As the Euro crisis unfolded, countries chose austerity as a way out of the doldrums. Less government spending would decrease debt and low tax rates would encourage “job creators” to do just that. Britain is now in a second recession, Greece and Spain have received large bail-outs, and Iceland (once the darling of austerity) has not delivered on its promise of prosperity.  

I’m not an economist, but I read Paul Krugman’s column in the New York Times regularly. And I am struck not so much by his position, but the history upon which it is based. He looks back at our Great Depression, the Japanese “lost years” and Europe’s current dilemma and draws eerie similarities between those failed agendas and the current popular idea of running our national economy as we would our personal one.

Oddly, the comparisons of how we operate our family budget and how the feds should run the country’s are diametrically opposed. I’ll leave it to Mr. Krugman to elaborate, but the bottom line is the fact that if the government doesn’t spend and companies do not hire there is no one left to spend any money on anything.

No, the time for our government to spend is now. And it needs to spend a lot. The Japanese tried using small stimulus plans which only served to stagnate their potential for a decade. The time for deficit reduction is when the economy prospers. (Of course, in good times politicians are tempted for tax roll backs and the like so as to endear themselves to the electorate. But no one wins, long term, in that scenario.) And we need only to look over our fence and take a look at our neighbor’s lawn to see that our present course of action will lead to less-than-desired results. Nothing complicated: austerity, alone, will not work for, if it did, Europe would be flying high.

I believe the Right knows this, too, but has discovered a mantra that resonates while allowing the pursuit of their “true agenda”: the dismantling of both social programs and an organized workforce. I could be wrong, but regardless I urge you to Google Mr. Krugman and read his op-eds. They offer more than a debatable solution. They offer historical perspective and real-time comparison to our European neighbors. Or you could always go out and plant that Bermuda grass.