Recently, seven of us senior citizens, all friends in our 70’s or close to it, and most of us retired or partially retired, met for our periodic meeting of the aptly named “Old Farts” group for a discussion of anything and everything.
This time, over dinner and wine, the discussion quickly centered on the void we all felt came with our retirements. While everyone agreed they didn’t miss the hassle of the 9-5 routine – the traffic, the pointless meetings, dealing with personnel problems – they did miss “being in the game.” Most of us had been successful — or at least thought we were. We counted, we made a difference, plus we had the titles and authority that made us feel important – and needed.
Now that is gone.
For me it was that, plus missing the daily interaction with people. People I liked, loved, was responsible for, and saw on a regular basis, if only in the hallway or on the elevator. And they seemed to reciprocate those feelings. That’s largely gone as well, and that may be the biggest hurdle of all. While still working, some of us imagine that the strongest and closest work friendships will endure no matter what. And in fact most don’t. Not because people are calloused or insincere or shallow. People just move on with their lives. They must. It’s all part of their journey and so must it be with ours.
Most of us are not sure what the next stage of our journey will bring, but life’s journey continues no matter what. When we plan a regular trip, we have a lot to say about the various stages of the journey and what happens next. We can even stop at a certain juncture and go back. Life’s journey is different: We can shape the next stage only up to a point but at the same time we must be prepared for long delays, quick detours, and sudden stops. There’s no going back.
Sounds grim and deterministic, but it doesn’t have to be that way. There is a big difference between”giving in” and “giving up.” And that crucial difference leaves us a great deal of latitude for shaping the next stage, for finding our passion, for doing volunteer work or just doing what we have always wanted to do but had neither the time nor resources. At the same time, there must be a graceful “letting go” at the back of one’s mind, an attitude of graceful surrender to life’s inevitabilities that must be at the core of every happy life, every happy journey. The alternative is to hold on and cling stubbornly to a familiar place or stage or person, hoping it will last indefinitely and refuse to open ourselves to the next stage of the journey. That’s a recipe for unhappiness. Besides, we don’t have that option with life’s journey; that continues whether we’re fully on board or not.
I always thought C.P. Cavafy’s poem “Ithaka,” captured this attitude so well:
“As you set out for Ithaka
hope your road is a long one,
full of adventure, full of discovery.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
angry Poseidon-don't be afraid of them:
you'll never find things like that on your way
as long as you keep your thoughts raised high,
as long as a rare excitement
stirs your spirit and your body.
Laistrygonians, Cyclops,
wild Poseidon-you won't encounter them
unless you bring them along inside your soul,
unless your soul sets them up in front of you.
“Hope your road is a long one.
May there be many summer mornings when,
with what pleasure, what joy,
you enter harbors you're seeing for the first time;
may you stop at Phoenician trading stations
to buy fine things,
mother of pearl and coral, amber and ebony,
sensual perfume of every kind-
as many sensual perfumes as you can;
and may you visit many Egyptian cities
to learn and go on learning from their scholars.
“Keep Ithaka always in your mind.
Arriving there is what you're destined for.
But don't hurry the journey at all.
Better if it lasts for years,
so you're old by the time you reach the island,
wealthy with all you've gained on the way,
not expecting Ithaka to make you rich.
Ithaka gave you the marvelous journey.
Without her you wouldn't have set out.
She has nothing left to give you now.
“And if you find her poor, Ithaka won't have fooled you.
Wise as you will have become, so full of experience,
you'll have understood by then what these Ithakas mean.”
Gerald E. Lavey
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Friday, April 15, 2011
The Buck Starts There
The phrase “The Buck Stops Here,” first popularized by President Truman, has achieved virtual iconic status in America politics ever since. After the Bay of Pigs disaster, for example, President Kennedy invoked the phrase, earning plaudits for his leadership, despite the debacle.
Sometimes, but rarely, leaders will not only step up but resign, as was the case this week with Hank Krakowski, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Krakowski either resigned voluntarily or was forced to resign after a spate of reported incidents of air traffic controllers falling asleep on the job.
The problem is, no matter how it happened, voluntarily or forced, serving up a sacrificial lamb does nothing but paper over the core problem and temporarily satisfy the blood lust of the political wolves on Capitol Hill and across town in the Secretary’s office or perhaps even the White House — and quiet, even charm, the news media. (See Washington Post column: “FAA official deserves a statue for stepping down.”)
To be fair to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, he probably had no choice but to request and/or accept Hank’s resignation — and he probably needs to watch his own back — because the political pressures are still enormous. He knows that the real problem was not Hank, but a failure of professionalism and accountability at the point of the spear — by the very small number of controllers who fell asleep on the job.
Virtually from the day he arrived at the FAA, Randy Babbitt has been preaching the importance of developing a culture of professionalism throughout the organization, down to the grass roots level. As a former pilot, he knew first hand that his performance and professional conduct on the flight deck did not depend on the airline’s Vice President of Operations, the Safety Officer, or his line boss, but on him. Hank Krakowski, a former pilot himself, believed and preached exactly the same message.
Leaders several layers above the airport tower cab – or even one or two layers removed – can only set the right tone, the right rules of conduct and responsibility, and follow up appropriately. But, ultimately, the people in the trenches must step up and hold themselves accountable.
In sports, when a team is struggling, the teams with genuine potential for improving and becoming winners are not those who expect just the perfect coach or manager to come through the turnstile before they start playing like professionals. They’re the teams with players who police themselves and hold themselves accountable and with player/leaders in their midst who will get in the faces of those who don’t.
The chances of that happening in air traffic are probably not strong because of the tendency of its union, often with strong political backing, to circle the wagons and blame management whenever one of its own gets in trouble. That’s unfortunate because the conduct of a very small number of controllers is darkening the reputation of the overwhelming majority of controllers who hold themselves accountable for the highest standard of professional conduct.
Frankly, that’s where the real damage is being done – to public trust in the safety of the aviation system. Despite some breathless news reporting, the danger to the airline passengers in the planes involved in the recent sleeping incidents was fortunately not nearly as great as reported. Airline pilots have their own on-board resources and contingency plans for dealing with such a situation. But, the loss of public confidence in the safety of the air traffic control system — which is incredibly safe by any standard of measurement — is being gradually eroded. And paying for another controller to staff the midnight shift or bringing in a fresh COO, no matter how qualified, is mere window dressing and won’t address the core issue.
Ultimately, the buck should stop where it starts.
Gerald E. Lavey
Sometimes, but rarely, leaders will not only step up but resign, as was the case this week with Hank Krakowski, Chief Operating Officer (COO) of the FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO). Krakowski either resigned voluntarily or was forced to resign after a spate of reported incidents of air traffic controllers falling asleep on the job.
The problem is, no matter how it happened, voluntarily or forced, serving up a sacrificial lamb does nothing but paper over the core problem and temporarily satisfy the blood lust of the political wolves on Capitol Hill and across town in the Secretary’s office or perhaps even the White House — and quiet, even charm, the news media. (See Washington Post column: “FAA official deserves a statue for stepping down.”)
To be fair to FAA Administrator Randy Babbitt, he probably had no choice but to request and/or accept Hank’s resignation — and he probably needs to watch his own back — because the political pressures are still enormous. He knows that the real problem was not Hank, but a failure of professionalism and accountability at the point of the spear — by the very small number of controllers who fell asleep on the job.
Virtually from the day he arrived at the FAA, Randy Babbitt has been preaching the importance of developing a culture of professionalism throughout the organization, down to the grass roots level. As a former pilot, he knew first hand that his performance and professional conduct on the flight deck did not depend on the airline’s Vice President of Operations, the Safety Officer, or his line boss, but on him. Hank Krakowski, a former pilot himself, believed and preached exactly the same message.
Leaders several layers above the airport tower cab – or even one or two layers removed – can only set the right tone, the right rules of conduct and responsibility, and follow up appropriately. But, ultimately, the people in the trenches must step up and hold themselves accountable.
In sports, when a team is struggling, the teams with genuine potential for improving and becoming winners are not those who expect just the perfect coach or manager to come through the turnstile before they start playing like professionals. They’re the teams with players who police themselves and hold themselves accountable and with player/leaders in their midst who will get in the faces of those who don’t.
The chances of that happening in air traffic are probably not strong because of the tendency of its union, often with strong political backing, to circle the wagons and blame management whenever one of its own gets in trouble. That’s unfortunate because the conduct of a very small number of controllers is darkening the reputation of the overwhelming majority of controllers who hold themselves accountable for the highest standard of professional conduct.
Frankly, that’s where the real damage is being done – to public trust in the safety of the aviation system. Despite some breathless news reporting, the danger to the airline passengers in the planes involved in the recent sleeping incidents was fortunately not nearly as great as reported. Airline pilots have their own on-board resources and contingency plans for dealing with such a situation. But, the loss of public confidence in the safety of the air traffic control system — which is incredibly safe by any standard of measurement — is being gradually eroded. And paying for another controller to staff the midnight shift or bringing in a fresh COO, no matter how qualified, is mere window dressing and won’t address the core issue.
Ultimately, the buck should stop where it starts.
Gerald E. Lavey
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Fiddling While Rome Burns
It’s hard to know whether to laugh or cry … but the U.S. Catholic bishops regularly provide ample reasons for both.
The latest has to do with the changes to the Roman missal – which includes the text and prayers used in the celebration of the Catholic Eucharist, or Mass, as it is commonly referred to. The new changes, the product of more than 30 years of labor, are “the most significant changes to the Mass in the more than 40 years since the Church permitted English in place of the Latin,” according to the New York Times.
You would think that an effort which took that long would produce a document that clarifies and smoothes over some of the admittedly rough spots of the texts and prayers translated in haste after Vatican II. Maybe even restore a bit of the poetry of the original. But, instead, the aim was to make the new translation closer to the Latin, which apparently Catholics who still haven’t gotten over the shocking changes of Vatican II are still yearning for.
Here is an example from the Nicene Creed, the profession of Christian faith, dating back to the early 4th century and used by several Christian denominations. Currently, the Catholic version of the following phrase now reads “Jesus Christ is…one in being with the Father.” But apparently that’s way too clear because it is being changed to “Jesus Christ is … consubstantial with the Father” to give it more of a Latinate flavor.
Similarly, the Confiteor, the public confession of sinfulness recited by the congregation at the beginning of Mass, now reads in part: “I confess … that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my deeds, in what I have done and what I failed to do.” Nicely said, and it covers the waterfront for us sinners. But apparently it didn’t lean heavily enough on guilt and evoke the original Latin. So, now it will read…. “In what I have done and what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault,” picking up on the “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”
Who — supposedly in God’s name — came up with such nonsense, you might reasonably ask? Catholic bishops, of course, along with bishops from other English-speaking countries, who set up the commission that produced the changes. It figures.
Weeping or laughing yet? But, wait there’s more…. In the same edition of the New York Times, there’s an article about the U.S. bishops attacking Sister Elizabeth A Johnson, a professor of theology at Fordham and respected author of several books on theology. The bishops say she challenges Church teaching in ways that are “beyond the pale.”
Sounds serious. Did she deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, or the Trinity? No, but just as impertinently, she along with many other theologians have dared to suggest that the exclusive use of male images in the Scripture and in the Catholic liturgy betrays the cultural bias of biblical scribes at the time, and this has contributed to the diminished role of women in Christianity, particularly in Roman Catholicism, ever since. The bishops scoff at this, saying that what the scribes have written, they have written. End of argument.
They, of course, live in mortal fear that any concessions along these lines might lead to the more open discussion of women priests, and they have already slammed the door on that issue. In dismissing it, their logic goes something along these lines — and I’m not joking: Jesus was a man, the apostles were men, ergo, all priests must be men.
So, what about God the Father? Is he Mother, too? Obviously not. If He is consubstantial with Jesus, he is obviously male. So, then how does He dress? In the simple attire that Jesus wore? Pin stripe suits? Wrangler jeans? Togas? Jockey shorts? No distinguishable male parts, you say? Then what makes Him male? It does beg the question, doesn’t it?
Silly and ridiculous? Of course, but such clerical idiocies invite parody and satire. Some things are too deep for tears.
Gerald E. Lavey
The latest has to do with the changes to the Roman missal – which includes the text and prayers used in the celebration of the Catholic Eucharist, or Mass, as it is commonly referred to. The new changes, the product of more than 30 years of labor, are “the most significant changes to the Mass in the more than 40 years since the Church permitted English in place of the Latin,” according to the New York Times.
You would think that an effort which took that long would produce a document that clarifies and smoothes over some of the admittedly rough spots of the texts and prayers translated in haste after Vatican II. Maybe even restore a bit of the poetry of the original. But, instead, the aim was to make the new translation closer to the Latin, which apparently Catholics who still haven’t gotten over the shocking changes of Vatican II are still yearning for.
Here is an example from the Nicene Creed, the profession of Christian faith, dating back to the early 4th century and used by several Christian denominations. Currently, the Catholic version of the following phrase now reads “Jesus Christ is…one in being with the Father.” But apparently that’s way too clear because it is being changed to “Jesus Christ is … consubstantial with the Father” to give it more of a Latinate flavor.
Similarly, the Confiteor, the public confession of sinfulness recited by the congregation at the beginning of Mass, now reads in part: “I confess … that I have sinned through my own fault in my thoughts and in my deeds, in what I have done and what I failed to do.” Nicely said, and it covers the waterfront for us sinners. But apparently it didn’t lean heavily enough on guilt and evoke the original Latin. So, now it will read…. “In what I have done and what I have failed to do, through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault,” picking up on the “mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.”
Who — supposedly in God’s name — came up with such nonsense, you might reasonably ask? Catholic bishops, of course, along with bishops from other English-speaking countries, who set up the commission that produced the changes. It figures.
Weeping or laughing yet? But, wait there’s more…. In the same edition of the New York Times, there’s an article about the U.S. bishops attacking Sister Elizabeth A Johnson, a professor of theology at Fordham and respected author of several books on theology. The bishops say she challenges Church teaching in ways that are “beyond the pale.”
Sounds serious. Did she deny the divinity of Christ, the virgin birth, or the Trinity? No, but just as impertinently, she along with many other theologians have dared to suggest that the exclusive use of male images in the Scripture and in the Catholic liturgy betrays the cultural bias of biblical scribes at the time, and this has contributed to the diminished role of women in Christianity, particularly in Roman Catholicism, ever since. The bishops scoff at this, saying that what the scribes have written, they have written. End of argument.
They, of course, live in mortal fear that any concessions along these lines might lead to the more open discussion of women priests, and they have already slammed the door on that issue. In dismissing it, their logic goes something along these lines — and I’m not joking: Jesus was a man, the apostles were men, ergo, all priests must be men.
So, what about God the Father? Is he Mother, too? Obviously not. If He is consubstantial with Jesus, he is obviously male. So, then how does He dress? In the simple attire that Jesus wore? Pin stripe suits? Wrangler jeans? Togas? Jockey shorts? No distinguishable male parts, you say? Then what makes Him male? It does beg the question, doesn’t it?
Silly and ridiculous? Of course, but such clerical idiocies invite parody and satire. Some things are too deep for tears.
Gerald E. Lavey
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
A Preferential Option for the Rich
One must admire its stark honesty at least, if not its greedy grab for more of the national pie. This is a reference, of course, to the long-term budget plan put forth yesterday by House Budget Chairman Paul D. Ryan which the House is expected to pass in the next few days and endorse as the GOP’s budget blueprint for the future.
In case you missed it, the GOP proposal would cut $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade. Most of those cuts would come from Medicare, Medicaid, and from repeal of the health care law. At the same time, it would slash individual and corporate income taxes, reducing the top rate to 25 percent from the current 35 percent.
To be fair, any honest discussion of long-term budget reform must include changes to the health care system, including Medicare and Medicaid. It also must include changes in Social Security and reduced military spending, two issues that Ryan either ignores, as in the case of Social Security, or soft pedaled, in the case of military spending.
But to bludgeon programs that primarily help the poor and disadvantaged in our society while cutting taxes that will benefit mostly the wealthiest among us is stunning in its naked lust for more of the national pie. This at a time when the distribution of wealth and benefits is already overwhelming skewed in favor of the rich and the income disparity gap grows wider.
In WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS, authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, state that “from 1979 until the eve of the Great Recession [2005] the top one percent [of Americans] received 36 percent of all gains in household income – even after taking into account the value of employer-sponsored health insurance, federal taxes, and all government benefits.”
The top 0.1 percent had it even better, they say, gaining 20 percent of all after-tax income gains. “If the total income growth of these years were a pie,” they write, “the slice enjoyed by the roughly 300,000 people in the top tenth of 1 percent would be half again as large as the slice enjoyed by the roughly 180 million in the bottom 60 percent.” Meantime, the income growth of the people in between was modest, with their spending power remaining essentially stagnant.
This neatly sums up for me once again the reason I am still a liberal Democrat, with all its warts, its ugly racial past, its excesses, and its maddeningly self-destructive ways. At its core, the Democratic Party has maintained a steady preferential option for the poor, a phrase enshrined in Catholic social teaching since the dawn of the 20th century and the heart of liberal Democratic policies and administrations since the Roosevelt Administration.
Despite everything, that is one single factor that has kept me in the Democratic fold since I first voted in 1960. And, once again, as the 2012 election draws near, the choice for me could not be more clear — or more easy.
Gerald E. Lavey
In case you missed it, the GOP proposal would cut $5.8 trillion in spending over the next decade. Most of those cuts would come from Medicare, Medicaid, and from repeal of the health care law. At the same time, it would slash individual and corporate income taxes, reducing the top rate to 25 percent from the current 35 percent.
To be fair, any honest discussion of long-term budget reform must include changes to the health care system, including Medicare and Medicaid. It also must include changes in Social Security and reduced military spending, two issues that Ryan either ignores, as in the case of Social Security, or soft pedaled, in the case of military spending.
But to bludgeon programs that primarily help the poor and disadvantaged in our society while cutting taxes that will benefit mostly the wealthiest among us is stunning in its naked lust for more of the national pie. This at a time when the distribution of wealth and benefits is already overwhelming skewed in favor of the rich and the income disparity gap grows wider.
In WINNER TAKE ALL POLITICS, authors Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson, state that “from 1979 until the eve of the Great Recession [2005] the top one percent [of Americans] received 36 percent of all gains in household income – even after taking into account the value of employer-sponsored health insurance, federal taxes, and all government benefits.”
The top 0.1 percent had it even better, they say, gaining 20 percent of all after-tax income gains. “If the total income growth of these years were a pie,” they write, “the slice enjoyed by the roughly 300,000 people in the top tenth of 1 percent would be half again as large as the slice enjoyed by the roughly 180 million in the bottom 60 percent.” Meantime, the income growth of the people in between was modest, with their spending power remaining essentially stagnant.
This neatly sums up for me once again the reason I am still a liberal Democrat, with all its warts, its ugly racial past, its excesses, and its maddeningly self-destructive ways. At its core, the Democratic Party has maintained a steady preferential option for the poor, a phrase enshrined in Catholic social teaching since the dawn of the 20th century and the heart of liberal Democratic policies and administrations since the Roosevelt Administration.
Despite everything, that is one single factor that has kept me in the Democratic fold since I first voted in 1960. And, once again, as the 2012 election draws near, the choice for me could not be more clear — or more easy.
Gerald E. Lavey
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)