The TSA's Full Body Scanner

I am disappointed. Sorely, sorely disappointed.

Today, I had the opportunity to pass through the Tulsa International Airport (three letter ICAO ID: TUL) on my way back to Illinois. Why was I in Tulsa today? I drove with my family this weekend down to Tractor Grandpa and Grandma B's house in Stillwater, OK, then flew back so I could work while they renovate Amy's grandparents' house to get it ready for sale.

Coming back, I knew that the Tulsa Airport was the test bed for the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) new full-body scanners. Why Tulsa, and not someplace else? Good question. The early results from the full-body scanners seem to be decent, with most passengers not minding the intrusiveness of the scan. I'm guessing the TSA wanted to use a smaller airport like Tulsa's for its testing, since installing these scanners is expensive ($170,000 apiece), and they do take slightly longer to scan a person than does a normal metal detector.

It could be the TSA also wanted to pick a fairly conservative region of the country for this initial test. Why would that be important? The imaging technology used in the full-body scanner actually shows just about everything under a person's clothes, including the outline of the body. The TSA has had to defend the new scanner from attacks by privacy-minded groups ever since the announcement that they were going to use this technology. Conducting the first test bed in Tulsa allowed the TSA to introduce people to the scanners in a part of the country where people generally favor security and doing the right thing more so than defending a person's right to privacy over all other concerns.

Having been through the scanner, I have to say I was disappointed. Introducing new technology, a new way of scanning a person for potential hazards to flight, should either simplify or streamline the screening process. If the new scanner was searching for metal objects, then it should be an improvement over the current metal detectors, right? Instead, I actually had to remove more things from my pockets, including anything that would not set off a metal detector, in order to pass through the new full-body scanner. I had to remove my belt, which normally would not set off a metal detector. I still had to remove my shoes to pass through the scanner. On a personal hassle basis, the new scanner was no better, and in some ways worse, than walking through the normal metal detector.

Another way the new scanner is worse than a metal detector is that, with the full-body scanner, it actually forces the person being scanned to stop completely, hold his or her hands above the head, and wait until getting clearance to proceed through the exit. In a normal metal detector, of course, the person continues walking, as long as the detector does not beep while in the middle of the detector. I also thought it strange that I had to hold my hands above my head, which is not something you normally do with a metal detector. I joked that it was like an electronic frisking, which elicited a laugh from the TSA agent (thankfully!).

I also found the current test bed in Tulsa was very selective. Only one or two of the new scanners were installed at the airport, with the majority of travelers passing through lanes that used the traditional metal detectors. I had to choose a lane that processed people through the new full-body scanner in order to see what it was like. The TSA agents manning that lane were almost apologetic about the delay and the hassle involved in passing through the new scanner.

Overall, will these new scanners make air travel safer in America? That's hard to say at this point. The full-body scanners are coming to more airports around America, so more air passengers will get a chance to experience them. Having been through one once, I am disappointed. Before going through the scanner, I half-expected (and really hoped!) that I would not have to remove my shoes or completely empty my pockets, and that was not the case. Personally, I can get through a metal detector with less fuss and in less time, so that will be my preferred option in the future.

Lincoln - Douglas Debate

As many people know (hopefully, the number of people who know is larger than the number of people who don't), 2009 marks the 200th anniversary of President Abraham Lincoln's birth. When he was a young candidate for the office of U.S. Senator from the state of Illinois, Lincoln engaged in a series of debates against another great orator named Stephen A. Douglas. The seven debates were held during the 1858 campaign, and they primarily focused on the topic of slavery, although they touched on other subjects, as well.

When I was in high school, I belonged to the NFL. Obviously, not the National Football League! The National Forensic League is the body that generally sets the rules and governs the various styles of public speaking contests that make up the format of high school debate. The type of debate known as Lincoln-Douglas Debate posed two speakers, one against the other, to argue for or against a given position. The key difference between Lincoln-Douglas and other forms of team debate is that in Lincoln-Douglas, the speakers offer primarily value-driven arguments, rather than policy-driven arguments. I remember having to take the pro-abortion side in one practice argument, trying to make the value of the mother (whose own life very well could depend on having a successful abortion, in some cases) outweigh the value of the unborn baby. I was unsuccessful.

I bring this up today, because President Obama lifted the Bush 43 ban on federal funding for stem cell research. That made me think about how I would argue either for or against such a move. What is the greatest value proposition we could make in the debate over federal funding on stem cell research?

Most Americans, if you believe the polls, place a higher value on the medical research potential offered by stem cell research. A 2001 poll offered by ABC News found a 60-40 split in Americans, with the majority favoring stem cell research, so the support has been fairly steady throughout the years. What that support for stem cell research effectively means is that most people in America place a higher value on potential future gains in medical treatments for any number of ailments than they place on the embryos that must be destroyed for their cells to be harvested. It's an either-or value proposition.

Do we destroy life before it is born in the hopes that current humans can live their lives better in the future?

I'm not quite sure where I stand on this issue. On the one hand, I see value in helping people lead better lives. If we can find the cures for paralysis, blindness, Parkinson's Syndrome and other neurological disorders, then we should make every attempt possible, right? People live longer and longer these days, and why shouldn't those adults be able to live better?

I'm actually reminded of a similar value proposition I've heard circulated by means of explaining the culture clash between America and China. Say a father, his mother, and his only child are involved in a car crash, and both the mother and the child are hurt badly. He has to decide which person to save, and he can save only one. Does he save his mother, who already lived a full life, with grandchildren? Or does he save his only child? In America, we almost always opt for saving the life of the child. In China, with their greater respect for their elders, the man chooses to save his mother.

In effect, we are making the same type of choice when it comes to stem cell research. Do we value our elders' lives higher than we value our children's lives? We already have medical advances and treatments that offer much longer life expectancy than existed in America 30 years ago. People understand the need to exercise and eat right. Americans nearing retirement today can expect to live almost as many years out of the workforce as they spent toiling in it. That's remarkable!

The real question during the Bush 43 administration was whether the Federal Government would spend its dollars to finance public or private stem cell research. Bush decided he would take a stand, and he forbade the use of taxpayer dollars on the research. Private funding still was available, but many research labs depend on Federal grants and other government funding for their studies. Not very many breakthroughs were reported during the past eight years. That was the value choice that Bush decided to make.

Obama today made the opposite value decision, which is his right. Again, the majority of Americans tend to support his value choice, and our notions of democracy tend to abide by the idea that the majority should rule.

My own value choice? If we're going to commit millions or billions of taxpayer dollars on the research, we'd better get some nifty new medical treatments out of it.

The Death of Jazz... ...and Baseball, Too?

Over the weekend (if you consider that the weekend starts on Friday; long gone are those college days when youthful exuberance demanded the weekend start on Thursday!), I finished reading Joe Posnanski's excellent book, The Soul of Baseball: A Road Trip Through Buck O'Neil's America. Did I mention it is an excellent read? O'Neil had such a zest for living, I'm now sad I never got to meet the man before he passed away. Posnanski was lucky enough to spend a year traveling with O'Neil, and there are wonderful life lessons* learned every step along the way.


* My favorite life lesson? When O'Neil schooled Posnanski with, "Son, in this life, you don't ever walk by a red dress."

One thing stuck with me after reading the book, however. O'Neil often compared baseball to jazz. He also compared living to jazz, but he insisted that the rhythms of baseball most closely matched those of jazz. I do think he was right about that.

What, then, do we make of the premise that jazz is dying, or perhaps that it died with John Coltrane in the late '60s? My wife was watching the Grammys last night, and she mentioned the same thing, that jazz is dead. Perhaps someone on the show said as much, I don't know.* The only part I watched last night was when Neil Diamond took the stage to sing "Sweet Caroline." How he could pull that off without any hint of irony, I have no idea. The only worthwhile part of the show immediately followed his performance, when they paid tribute to those musicians, producers, and even one music photographer who passed away last year, followed by an excellent rendition of "Who Do You Love?" as a tribute to Bo Diddley.

* I can't stand the incredible proliferation of awards shows -- too much self-congratulatory back slapping can't be good for any industry, and it's not like the folks in Hollywood or the music industry really need any more attention. So I boycott all of the award shows, even the Oscars, on general principle.

I thought I would explore the thought that jazz died with Coltrane a bit more, since people still practice and listen to jazz in great numbers. I have friends who are dedicated to the genre, and who still travel great lengths to attend the annual New Orleans Jazz & Heritage Festival. Of course, as soon as I opened their website, I saw a picture announcing the scheduled performance of Jon Bovi. Maybe jazz really is dead, after all.

I also found this very recent article from a musical magazine called The Walrus (with an obvious reference to The Beatles, no? Actually, probably not.), in which the author talks about jazz and how it might slip into the same category as classical music: no composer creates anything fresh and new; performers just put their own interpretation on the classic pieces of the genre. Alexander Gelfand actually makes a convincing argument that many musical genres hit similar walls during the '60s, when new musicians revolted against standard elements of music such as meter, harmony, and tonality in attempts to push the boundaries of music. Nothing new there. People in all walks of life were revolting against the Establishment during that time frame.

Personally, I am ambivalent towards modern jazz for all the same reasons why people describe jazz as dead today. As much as I love swing, big band, bebop, and other earlier forms of jazz, I detest the random, meandering improvisational form that took hold on jazz in the '60s. Too many of the sounds are discordant, and the songs don't seem to go anywhere. Everything is too loose, if you will. How can anyone tell if a truly improvisational effort that goes on for 25 minutes is any good or not?

Very good rock-n-roll, on the other hand, is invariably tight musically. There should be no random notes, and a three-and-a-half minute performance does not allow for any wasted effort.* Think about the signature songs of Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and even The Ramones. All of their songs were tight and to the point. I do remember being introduced to a small college band's sound by a fellow traveler on an airplane ride back in 1993. I remember thinking, "Wow. This sound is tight!" That was The Dave Matthews Band, just getting ready to release their first commercially successful album, "Under the Table and Dreaming."

* Obviously, lots of songs played on classic rock stations ("In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida," "Hotel California," and virtually anything by Chicago, Boston, the Moody Blues, Jethro Tull, etc.) do meander and take up unbearable amounts of time. I don't listen to those, either.

Back to the question: what to make of the death of jazz, if jazz is so closely tied to baseball? I would be remiss if I failed to include in this discussion the contributions of Ken Burns, who did two very extensive documentary series, one on Baseball, and one on Jazz. Clearly, O'Neil was not the only one who saw the connection between these two very American pastimes.

This discussion could get way out of hand at this point. The rise of rap and hip hop culture affected the style of play in the NBA, and there is a great intertwining of hip hop attitude in American culture at large (yes, even in the suburbs) these days. I don't want to get into all of that.

Drawing just one parallel to the jazz-baseball pairing, rock-n-roll could be associated with football. The rise of rock music in the early '50s and beyond coincided with the rise in popularity of the NFL and college football, and the NFL tends to get artists for the Super Bowl halftime show from the ranks of rock-n-roll (the early days of using Up With People notwithstanding), so I do think that case is strong. The rise of football also coincided with the rise of television, and there is a lot to be said about changing media and changing tastes, as well.

Baseball has its own issues that have led to declining interest among the American public. The litany goes on and on:

• The players strike of '94 that forced the cancellation of the World Series just about killed the game.
  
• Sadly, it was not until the Steroid Era home run bashers brought people back into the seats in '98 that baseball seemed strong again.
  
• Now, we all wonder how to deal with the statistics from the Steroid Era.
  
• Starting times for playoff games are too late for the next generation of fans to stay up and watch their heroes play the most meaningful games.
• Many of the playoff games that used to air on one of the big four networks (NBC, CBS, ABC, and Fox) now are being shown only on cable stations like TNT or TBS.
  
• Kids don't get out and play sandlot games with their friends any more, depriving kids of the pure joy of playing outside the regimented structure of organized baseball leagues.
• A major drawback to organized youth baseball is the constant pressure to win imposed upon the kids by their coaches and parents; it often leads to burnout.
  
• Ticket, parking, and concession prices for a family of four hover close to $200 at most MLB ballparks, making the possibility of regularly taking a family to see a game nigh impossible.
• Actually going to the ballpark is still the best way of seeing the game and taking in all the rhythms, the sounds, and the music of baseball, as O'Neil described it.
• Watching a game on TV still leaves a lot to be desired, since you cannot see the action on the entire field at the same time in any camera view, unlike football and basketball.
• The MLB "salary cap," in which teams spending well above the cap limit pay a relatively small payroll tax, does not have the same effect as does the NFL cap, which significantly levels the playing field for free agents, thereby ensuring competitive balance.
  

There are many, many reasons why Americans do not watch or play baseball in the same numbers as we once did. The rise of football, basketball, and even "extreme sports" have all crowded the sports landscape. The same splintering of TV viewership that accompanied the rise of cable TV (where there is a niche for any viewing pleasure, meaning we never will have 109 million or so people tune in to a single show ever again) has had an impact on how we play and watch sports, as well.

I would also argue that people's tastes have changed since baseball's heyday in the '30s-'50s. People don't really listen to baseball games on the radio any more; who has the time for that? Forget that listening to baseball on the radio is the perfect medium if you cannot make it to the ballpark in person. Even if you can go to the ballpark, you'll still see fans listening to radio broadcasts while watching the game. It's a powerful connection that exists between radio and baseball.

I grew up listening to Cincinnati Reds games on WLW 700 AM with Joe Nuxhall and Marty Brennaman, primarily because the pizza delivery cars we drove only had AM radios in them. There was nothing better than listening to the games while driving to and from the next delivery location on a hot summer night. A very big reason why I've wanted a satellite radio receiver for the longest time was because I would be able to listen to Reds games on the radio once again, no matter where in the U.S. I lived.

What I'm really trying to say here is that the rise and fall of jazz and baseball fandom does seem to be linked. There are perhaps no more American modes of expression and entertainment than baseball and jazz. But the reasons for the overall decline in popularity for those two pastimes are complex and have to be couched in terms of shifting cultural patterns, as well. It's a fascinating topic, and I thank Posnanski and O'Neil for making me think of it.

Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me

Actually, I have one more economics-themed post that I wanted to include on the last one about inverted yield curves, but just didn't seem to fit there. This might actually have less to do with economics than it does politics. You decide. But I promise: discussions of which obscure old movies I've been watching from NetFlix are coming soon to this space. Get up for it!

At this point, I wanted to bring up quotes from the op-ed piece President Barack Obama penned for the Washington Post on Thursday. The full article is here (free registration may be required). Obama, naturally, was defending his administration's "Stimulus Package", which people have critiqued as nothing more than a pork-laden spending bill. Obama sounded a clarion call for action, trying to get some amount of bipartisan support from the GOP side of Congress, but here is what he said:

By now, it's clear to everyone that we have inherited an economic crisis as deep and dire as any since the days of the Great Depression. Millions of jobs that Americans relied on just a year ago are gone; millions more of the nest eggs families worked so hard to build have vanished. People everywhere are worried about what tomorrow will bring.

What Americans expect from Washington is action that matches the urgency they feel in their daily lives -- action that's swift, bold and wise enough for us to climb out of this crisis.

Because each day we wait to begin the work of turning our economy around, more people lose their jobs, their savings and their homes. And if nothing is done, this recession might linger for years. Our economy will lose 5 million more jobs. Unemployment will approach double digits. Our nation will sink deeper into a crisis that, at some point, we may not be able to reverse.

Now, I don't want to get too historical on you, but I fear Obama could slide down the slippery slope of sounding too much like Jimmy Carter did in the late '70s.

At this point, I would love to link to a YouTube clip showing the scene from an early episode of The Simpsons, when the townsfolk of Springfield were expecting the unveiling of a statue dedicated to Abraham Lincoln. Instead, when the drape was lifted, the statue was of Jimmy Carter (with the tagline "Malaise Forever" -- classic!), which of course created a town riot. Sadly, that clip doesn't exist on YouTube, but I can provide the actual Carter "Crisis of Confidence" speech from 15 July 1979, archived by the University of Virginia. Side note: who knew that when Bill Clinton used the line "I feel your pain," he was practically quoting Carter?



Economic recessions have everything to do with crises of confidence, of course. If consumers have no faith their jobs are secure, their buying patterns change radically. That is one reason why Hyundai's offer to buy back a new car purchased this year if the buyer loses his or her job is so revolutionary. As almost every other car manufacturer saw huge hits on new car sales, Hyundai's sales actually increased 14%. Consumer confidence levels are so critical to the economy, a dedicated organization exists to track them.

Consumer confidence was one factor why the economic crisis described in Tom Clancy's 1994 novel Debt of Honor was so realistic. Clancy understood that for a foreign entity to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy, all they had to do is sow distrust and fear of our economic institutions (like the financial firms on Wall Street) among the American people. The resulting crisis of confidence brought the American economy low, setting up the rest of the novel. Sorry, I don't want to play spoiler for anyone who has not read it yet.

FDR understood how important consumer confidence was during his first Inaugural address, in 1933, when he famously declared, "...the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." The U.S. was already in the midst of the Great Depression, and only by dispelling the negative cloud of uncertainty and fear could FDR lead the country towards economic recovery.

Getting back to Obama and Carter, President Obama will get his stimulus package approved eventually. There was word on the news today that Congress either already approved or appears ready to compromise on a reduced spending bill, one that totals a mere $780B price tag to future generations.

I just think that if Obama wants to help the U.S. recover from this recession in a timely manner, he will skip the doom and gloom speechifying. For heaven's sake, don't mention the possibility of 5 million jobs going away! He needs to leave the fearmongering to the MSM. They do a great job of that.

Please Don't Let Me be Misunderstood

I really try to avoid creating multiple posts in one day, primarily because I'm worried that I won't have enough to write about on other days. However, I just saw this video clip from what appears to be a Republican response to Slate and just had to respond:



Now, I'm no political guru, but what Mark McKinnon says about President Bush not revealing his lighter side to the national media runs counter to everything we've been taught to believe about the press. I'm not talking about the presumed bias against anything Republican here; Fox News and Rush Limbaugh fill that void. No, it is this direct quote from McKinnon:

It’s really hard, and it’s increasingly hard with the proliferation of media, to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to. To get kind of behind the curtain and show the human side.

Wait, you're trying to make the claim that the reason why no one ever saw the softer side of Bush 43 is because of the proliferation of media? That there are too many sources from which we voters can get to know a candidate?

I don't think I've ever heard anything more patently false* than that. I know that these political insiders, spin doctors, and apparatchiks have their own agendas any time they open their mouths. Michael J. Fox had a wonderful TV show for a long time based on that one premise. But there should be a line drawn between simple spin or image control and outright falsehoods.

* Well, maybe that the Soviets invaded Afghanistan because they were looking for a warm water port, but that's beside the point.

Case in point: The current (and soon to be former) Governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich, is currently undergoing impeachment hearings in the Illinois state Senate. He decided to boycott the proceedings, claiming a denial of his due process, and instead is waging the public perception war for his image by making personal appearances on 20/20, Good Morning America, and whatnot. That's his right, and certainly lots of people who have screwed up royally decided to take a similar path. Why admit any wrongdoing, when you can shed a few tears in front of Barbara Walters and get a few sympathetic people on your side? It's as American as apple pie, these days.

However, that doesn't mean we have to like it or accept it. Falsehoods are falsehoods, no matter how they are spun. Getting back to the original comment, doesn't McKinnon think there was a single TV show host who would have loved to bring Bush 43 on the set and present him in a favorable light? His statement is that not a single event like that was possible for the eight years of the Bush administration, and that is impossible to believe. Were the shots of Bush relaxing on his Crawford, TX ranch not enough to humanize the man? What about the stills of Bush riding his mountain bike?

No, the real culprit here is not the fact that too many media choices exist to showcase a candidate's sense of humor. For too long, politics have revolved around the ability to show candidates in more open settings. Think of Bill Clinton appearing on MTV to field the infamous "Boxers or briefs?" question, or of him appearing on The Tonight Show to play the sax for Jay Leno. The real danger is that those fluff pieces can drown out more serious discussions on policy stances or political agendas.

Ask yourself this question: what was the alternative before these media avenues existed? Political machines like Tammany Hall used to pick our candidates for us, didn't they? Behind closed doors in smoke-filled rooms, they did. Would we really want to head back to that style of process?

No, the real culprits for not knowing enough about a candidate are those spin meisters like McKinnon himself. As access to the candidates improved with radio and television this past century, those candidates best able to work with the new technologies benefited the most. Think of JFK in the first televised debate with Richard Nixon. Anyone listening to that debate thought Nixon won; those watching on TV had a vastly different impression. Heck, think of those candidates (including Obama) now blogging and using the Internet to spur grassroots organizations and fund-raising machines.

But as access has increased, so has the worry (again, on the part of the spin meisters like McKinnon) that their candidate will say or do something stupid while a camera or like device is recording. The only alternative? To severely restrict access to a candidate and heavily script every appearance, every utterance, to make sure the candidate remains on topic and on message, lest any words that could be used in a negative campaign ad be caught on tape.

The same is true in sports, as well. Michael Jordan and Tiger Woods, at one point of their lives, were happy, confident young men who delighted in telling their own story to the press. As they realized the power (and lucrative nature!) of marketing themselves, they clammed up to the point of only saying the most droll of sound bites. It's also why Jordan never took up a side for a politician, using the old line that "Republicans buy shoes, too."

So, the problem is not that there are too many media outlets "...to provide that kind of exposure and transparency that we’d like to." The problem is that the candidates' or President's handlers won't allow him (or her) to speak for him- or herself while on the campaign trail or while in office. Just give credit where credit is due. You can't blame mass media for every ill in society, as tempting as that might be.

Obama's Mandate

I was happy and relieved to see that Barack Obama won in fairly convincing fashion last night, if only to prevent charges of disenfranchisement and another "stolen" election. Here are a few scattershot thoughts, in no apparent order, but I wanted to get them out there:

Obama won a relatively close popular vote by about six percentage points over McCain, but was able to collect a sizable lead in the electoral college by winning key battleground states of Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Virginia.

Almost 119 Million Americans turned out to vote, which is decent until you consider we are now a nation of over 300 Million. In very rough terms, that's still less than 40% of Americans casting a ballot for the next President.

**Edited on 11/6/08** The numbers I can find online still add up to only about 120 Million Americans having cast a ballot on Tuesday. But on The Newshour on PBS last night, they said the total number of votes cast was over 132 Million, and that the percentage of eligible voters who cast a ballot was something like 60%. Obviously, not all Americans being counted in the 300+ Million number are eligible to vote. The other discrepancy (between 120 and 132 Million) could be explained by news sites' refusal to update their electoral maps with the results from NC and Missouri.

Despite the anecdotal evidence (stories) of young Americans being energized by Obama and turning out to vote, NPR last night said the rate of first-time voters in this election (~10%) basically equalled the rate of first-time voters in the last election (~11%).

Missouri failed to vote for the next President for only the second time (ever? or just in the past 100 years?).

The Redskins once again correctly predicted the next President. Any time they lose their last home game before the election, the incumbent party loses the White House. That was true this year, as the Redskins lost to Pittsburgh 23-6 on Monday night, but was not true in 2004.

It appears that Senators from Arizona, no matter how popular and well-respected they may be in their home state, cannot get elected to our nation's highest office. The sample size is small, though.

My three-year-old son was watching the Today show with my wife this morning, as we tried to educate him about Obama being the next President. He cried out, "No Obama! No Obama!" But really, he just wanted us to change the channel from the news over to Curious George on PBS Kids.

We also enjoyed eating "Bumblebee Pie" yesterday, courtesy of my son. It was nothing more than cornbread to go with our chili-style meal, but it kinda looked like a pie before it was cut, and since we put honey on the cornbread, it suddenly had an association with bumblebees. So be it! I love how kids come up with different names for things!

It also made me think of when my parents renamed an apple turnover-style dessert in honor of Barry Goldwater after his defeat to LBJ in 1964. To this day, I think of that dessert come election time. My mom, as a Democrat, has refused to make it for decades.

A classic fearless prediction I saw in James Taranto's Best of the Web column last week: Obama will not be the first President to appoint an African-American to the post of Secretary of State.

Here is sincerely hoping that Obama's election will turn out to be a real game-changer on the topic of race relations in America. We are not far removed from Jim Crow, segregation, and disenfranchisement, as Obama pointed out in his victory speech last night. Things have changed a lot just since the Civil Rights Act was signed by LBJ in 1964. Let's hope we continue making progress and that this election marks real hope for healing and racial togetherness (unity is too strong a word) in the future. I really don't want a return to the Sixties.

I sincerely hope that Obama will practice what he preached on the campaign trail. That he will be a uniter, not a divider. That he will actually follow steps he himself set forth when he became the President of the Harvard Law Review, and appoint more conservative members to editorial positions than he did his liberal friends. They were upset with him then, but it showed that Obama had principles and wanted to make sure the best people were appointed to the right positions. Too much of politics today has become this: I funded your campaign, so what cherry position do I get in your Cabinet? More simply: What type of access to power can I buy? If Obama truly wants to govern the country according to principle, then he will appoint one or more Republicans (can anyone say Colin Powell?) to his Cabinet.

As a follow-on to that note, it could be that Obama very well understands the age-old principle of, "Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer."

Obama will also need to rein in members of his own party, members that see the large gains made by House and Senate Democrats, and who will want to drive a very left-leaning agenda simply because they have the votes to do so. Nancy Pelosi, I'm thinking of you!

If Obama wants to be a uniter, and to get away from the partisan politics that have both poisoned the atmosphere in Washington and caused everyday Americans to lose faith in their government as a whole. Let's not forget that the approval ratings for Congress is at all time lows, in the single digits. Something different needs to be done there.

To quote Forrest Gump: "That's about all I have to say about that."

The Darndest Thing

Wouldn't you say this is the darndest thing? MLB and Bud Selig adjusted the start time of a possible game six in the World Series to accommodate a half-hour ad buy from the Obama campaign.

Forget for a minute that not many World Series' have made it to six games recently, as that article pointed out. Also forget that since game five was suspended last night due to rain, they will take an extra day in Philly tonight to determine the outcome of that game. There's more rain in the forecast for tonight, so there's no telling if they will actually play a game six on Thursday this week, even if game six becomes necessary. (And weren't they wishing for the indoor comfort of Tropicana Field last night?!)

What really makes me scratch my head is the fact that Obama still feels the ad buy is necessary, with less than a week to go until polls close. What more could he say to the American people that he hasn't already said through campaign stops, town halls during the primary season, his speech at the DNC, and during the Presidential debates with John McCain? Does Obama feel a little desperation creeping in, even though the MSM already crowned him the presumptive next POTUS?

NPR yesterday spoke with some voters in Missouri, a state that traditionally picks the next POTUS. I think they said that the only time (maybe it was the only time since 1900... ?) that the residents of Missouri didn't vote for the next President was in the 1956 election. Missouri this year is split in pre-election polling, almost exactly 50-50 between McCain and Obama.

It just makes me wonder... even with the issues of the crumbling national economy, the meltdown on Wall Street, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, and with people's worries about the advancing age of McCain -- even with all of that! -- Obama still hasn't sealed the deal. He still feels the need to make one last pitch to the American populace. Which makes me scratch my head, just a little bit.

Wang Dang Rock 'n' Roll

Seeing Brian Setzer and his Orchestra in all their faux leopard printed glory last night on ABC's "Dancing With the Stars" made me think of that 1991 Nothing Beats a Bud commercial where Setzer gets served by some old granny.

Thanks to the power of the Internet, I can not only show the ad (which someone conveniently uploaded to YouTube):



I can also link to a music website that provided the granny's name and background. Her name was Cordell Jackson, and I just LOVE that quote at the top!!! Nothing beats a true American original like Cordell Jackson.

The Myth of Work-Life Balance

Have you heard people, usually those who are near or have reached the end of their careers, deliver the trite old saying, "No one on their deathbed ever said, 'I wish I'd spent more time at work.'" As true as that statement might be, it nonetheless rubs me the wrong way. This is going to be a long post, so hang on and stay with me.

People talk all the time about finding the right work-life balance, a concept that was probably relatively unknown before the 1970s. The entire idea is to moderate the demands of work and spend precious time with loved ones, hobbies, or in stress relieving activities. When both parents work full-time jobs, finding the right work-life balance becomes ever more important. I still remember the news media picking up on the concept of "latchkey kids" when I was growing up in the 1980s, and of spending "quality time" with the family in the 1990s.

To get a fuller flavor of the type of hypocritical advice people love to dispense, here are WebMD's tips on securing a better work-life balance. That list is chock-full of a bunch of advice that sounds good on the surface, but which is incredibly difficult to implement in real life.

There is no doubt that men want to spend more time with their families. While women traditionally sacrifice their careers to stay home and raise children, more and more men are choosing the stay-at-home-dad route instead. As odd as it might seem at first, our generally closed-minded society is slowly accepting that men can be decent, responsible caregivers as well. It's true!

There is also no doubt that Americans are working harder than ever these days. Americans take less time off from work, work more hours per work week, and are more productive than any other nation on Earth. We're certainly working harder than Old Europe, what with their labor union-imposed work week restrictions and guaranteed vacations. When's the last time you or a person you knew actually took a two-week or longer family vacation during the summer? We just don't do that these days, instead taking vacation time in smaller chunks in the form of long weekends. We might still get some family time, but everything seems so incredibly busy and rushed these days.

In my own experience, I can say I'm incredibly fortunate to have what amounts to a regular 40-45 hour per week, 8-to-5, white collar, salaried "exempt" employee type of job. Believe me, I didn't know what an exempt* employee was during my time on active duty with the Air Force. For all the benefits the military gives its service members (free gym, discount groceries, free healthcare, subsidized housing, etc.), the pay was set based on your rank and years in service and/or time in grade. How productive you were didn't make a difference in pay, and there certainly weren't any bonuses. While some jobs on active duty are more like normal offices, with standard office hours, what it really meant is that they owned you and could ask you to come in at any time, day or night, often for an exercise and not even a real-world crisis. Even the "normal" office jobs usually had people arrive for work no later than 7:30 am and leave not before 5:30 pm or later, depending on what "emergency" the LtCol had going on.

*Exempt from what? The overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). No overtime for you, pal, you're exempt!

For all the talk (lip service) the Air Force leadership gave to providing a stable work environment and solid support network for service members and their families, the mission always came first. Seriously, the Air Force rated its officers on personality traits to determine whether a leader was more a "mission" or a "people" person. Even those leaders who saw themselves as people focused still spent the majority of their time getting the mission done.

Ah, but I digress. After leaving active duty, I had to find a real job. Yes, civilian jobs usually require real performance to justify the base salary, and if you do a really good job, maybe -- just maybe -- you'll get a bonus at the end of the year. Sadly, even as an exempt employee, sometimes the work requires that extra time at the office to get 'er done.

I constantly struggle on a daily basis with the demands of work and family, and I am certainly not alone. The WSJ has a great blog simply called "The Juggle," and they cover a wide variety of work-life balance issues. They've often mentioned the "walk of shame," and no, we're not talking about college-age women walking back across campus on early Saturday morning, still in their clothes from Friday night. What the Juggle writers refer to as their walk of shame is an employee leaving work at 5:30 pm to spend time with the family. What ever happened to "bankers' hours" being an acceptable work day? They weren't talking about investment bankers, that's for sure.

I do know that I remain incredibly fortunate to have a job that pays well, challenges me to lead and to be creative in problem solving, and which allows me to see my family pretty much on a daily basis. I don't travel that much, I don't have to spend nights and weekends at the office (usually), I don't work the third shift at the hospital or factory, and I get to spend lots of quality time with my family. I'm almost always home in time for us to sit down together as a family for dinner, and how many people can say that these days?

What got me thinking about all of this is not just the quote mentioned above about no one wishing they spent more time at work on their deathbed. In yesterday's WSJ, they had a book excerpt from one of the Journal's contributing editors, Ron Alsop. Here's a block quote from that article titled "The 'Trophy Kids Go to Work":

When Gretchen Neels, a Boston-based consultant, was coaching a group of college students for job interviews, she asked them how they believe employers view them. She gave them a clue, telling them that the word she was looking for begins with the letter "e." One young man shouted out, "excellent." Other students chimed in with "enthusiastic" and "energetic." Not even close. The correct answer, she said, is "entitled." "Huh?" the students responded, surprised and even hurt to think that managers are offended by their highfalutin opinions of themselves.

The article goes into great depth talking about the Millennials (creatively defined as the generation born between 1980 and 2001), and how they have such high expectations for themselves and their work places. One common refrain from corporate recruiters apparently is that these kids, just out of college, want to be CEO of the company tomorrow. These kids were raised during the whole self-esteem movement, which awarded participation trophies to every kid who showed up, not just the Little League champions. Of course these kids are special; they've been told how special they are their whole lives; why wouldn't they be special at work?!

The article wraps up by touching the surface of why these high expectations are so ironic:

In the final analysis, the generational tension is a bit ironic. After all, the grumbling baby-boomer managers are the same indulgent parents who produced the millennial generation. Ms. Barry of Merrill Lynch sees the irony. She is teaching her teenage daughter to value her own opinions and to challenge things. Now she sees many of those challenging millennials at her company and wonders how she and other managers can expect the kids they raised to suddenly behave differently at work. "It doesn't mean we can be as indulgent as managers as we are as parents," she says. "But as parents of young people just like them, we can treat them with respect."

For me, it all boils down to this: The Boomer generation wants to forget how hard they had to work to get to where they are today. They preach all this "work to live, don't live to work" mantra, and we begin to hope that our bosses could actually be somewhat enlightened in achieving a proper work-life balance. But then they are the ones currently in positions of authority who layer on the work and expect it to get done today. They are the ones who think younger workers who don't pull 60 hour plus work weeks are lazy. They are the ones who shove the message of "Cats in the Cradle" down your throat with one hand while simultaneously squeezing every last ounce of productivity out of a person with the other.

The other thing that falls into this same category is finding work you love, work you're passionate about -- that's what will make you happy working 80 hour+ weeks!!! Almost all the career coaches out there start with a personality profile to decipher what type of work a person really should be doing with their life. I get the idea that a person shouldn't dread coming to work every day, but Mark Twain succinctly said: "Work consists of whatever a body is obliged to do. Play consists of whatever a body is not obliged to do."

Think about it. Pay is what our employers have to give us in order to perform activities we'd rather not be doing. If every person in the world only did what he or she wanted to do with their lives, things they were really passionate about, who would be the waiters, janitors, or insurance adjusters? That's not meant as a dig on people who fill those needed roles in our society. The bigger picture is that most people, myself included, find ourselves in hard jobs that pay the bills. If we work with people we like, all the better. We find a vocation that we can stand to do, and is something we're good at doing, and we simply do it to put food on the table, a roof over our family's heads, and clothes on our backs. It's probably not the first love of our life, but that is why we have hobbies and activities (a life!) away from work.

Plus, if we all had the jobs that we absolutely loved in this life, we wouldn't get any enjoyment from fantasizing about those jobs we think we'd rather have. C'mon, who hasn't talked over cocktails about the one job a person would love to have? The other day, I discovered my CEO would rather do wood working in his shop, building furniture or all sorts of things. Me? I would be a race car driver.

Just don't lie to me and say that work-life balance, or that finding your niche in life, is all that important in one breath, and come right back and ask for that TPS report in the next. You'll get your damn TPS report.