The Airline Industry: Part 2

Through the 1960’s, flying was an experience to be savored although the majority of the population couldn’t afford to fly. Perhaps these wealthy passengers could be construed as being snobbish in their dressed up clothes and demanding respect and high quality service from the airlines. But these passengers received both respect and levels of services unheard of today. As more people started to fly, however, the idea of flying changed from being prestigious to being fun, friendly and most of all, sexy.

Pilots were revered as handsome playboys with a woman in every city while the stewardesses were beautiful young women who epitomized the idea of free love. Airlines perpetuated this image with advertisements ranging from the tame “Fly the Friendly Skies” to the racy “Fly Me” whispered, of course, by a beautiful stewardess. The epitome of this image was encompassed in the campy book and subsequent movie entitled “Coffee, Tea or Me? The Uninhibited Memoirs of Two Stewardesses” And the idea of sex and the airline industry wasn’t limited to just the stewardesses and pilots, even the passengers were getting in on the act with The Mile High Club.

In the last 10-20 years, more and more people could afford to fly as the airlines lowered ticket prices due to deregulation and lower fuel costs. Forty years ago you were in the minority if you had flown, but twenty years later you were quickly becoming in the minority if you had never been on a plane. Businessmen still made up a large percentage of travelers but by the 1980’s more and more families could afford to take their children on to planes. Flying was no longer prestigious or sexy but had become the transportation for the masses.

Today, however, it has turned into a chore, something to be endured. The excitement of picking up someone from the airport has become a major inconvenience. Forget meeting them at their gate – you can’t even park and wait at the curb. Instead you circle around or wait off premises until you get the call that they have landed. And if you are taking someone back to the airport, anyone under 25 would be astounded to learn that you use to be able to wait with them at their gate. Now you quickly pop the trunk and nearly toss out both the person and their baggage and move on before the guards yell at you for parking at the curb.

But the real horror is saved for the travelers. No one can keep up with all the restrictions as to what you can or can’t bring with you or even checked. Not only are there a gazillion rules but now you are also charged fees if you have too much, too many or too heavy bags! The airlines are charging you fees for everything, if they still even offer these extra services. Northwest now charges $10 for meals; US Airways charge $5 for headsets and $2 for water or a soft drink! There are $7 fees for blankets and pillows plus extra fees if your baggage is too heavy or you have too many. But the worst I’ve heard is United which charges $25 to talk to a real person when making your reservation instead of on-line!

Then there is the hassle of getting to your gate and on your plane. Everybody knows the strain and stress of standing in the security line. More and more are now wearing loafers and flip flops rather than go through the added hassle of stooping to untie your shoes to remove them and then keeping your balance as you stand on one foot putting a shoe on the other while juggling with your bags and being bumped by other passengers. The worst, though, are the horror stories of hours spent on the plane sitting on the tarmac, of cancelled flights, overbooked flights and I could go on and on.

The idea of flying being sexy seems ludicrous today, doesn’t it? Stewardesses aren’t even called that anymore and more than likely are men or older woman and the pilots are barricaded behind steel enforced doors. And any of the earlier slogans promising to take care of you (Delta Gets You There With Care) or provide terrific service (Hospitality and Service From The Heart) would also be laughed at when compared to flying today.

It’s sad. Something has been lost, thanks to terrorists, greed, unions whatever and I don’t know if flying will ever regain that image of prestige or excitement or even sexiness. Perhaps like carriages, trains, buses and Amtrak it’s time is past. Maybe it is time for something new – a faster, safer, more exciting way to travel. Space shuttle anyone?

The Airline Industry: Part 1 - Yesterday

Thanksgiving weekend is synonymous with five things: family, turkey, football, shopping and travel. It’s the latter that has my attention, specifically airline travel. Airlines have been in the news a lot lately as the industry tries to cope with fewer passengers and higher fuel costs by charging for services that use to be free and creating new restrictions. They may have dropped the idea of charging more for overweight passengers but they are adding on other ridiculous fees and limitations on top of the significant changes since 9-11. All in all the entire experience of flying has dramatically changed and not for the best.

I fell in love with airports and the idea of travel by air when I was a small child. It was always a major event to go to the airport, usually to pick up one of my grandmothers. In those days we could wait for passengers at their gate. There was always so much to see while we waited. Although I could look out the floor to ceiling windows as the planes landed and departed I was always more interested in what was happening in the terminal.

In the 1960’s airplane travel was still a novelty and special event. You would never see travelers in jeans much less shorts as almost everyone dressed in their Sunday best to board a plane. This resulted in an airport filled with nice looking people all dressed up. Not only were there people waiting for someone to arrive, but back then people would also accompany the traveler to their gate and wait until they could board their plane. This meant that all around you were people who were hugging and crying while saying goodbye or else hugging and crying while saying hello to a loved one. Everywhere you looked there were small dramatic scenes being played out, the sad and painful angst of saying goodbye were offset by the joyous reunions when greeting a loved one.

Then there were the stewardesses. They all looked so beautiful in their crisp uniforms. But it was more than just their looks that enamored me. To my five year old eyes, these women seemed so efficient and knowledgeable and filled with some hidden purpose as they strode through the airports trailing their cute little suitcases behind them. Oh how I wanted to grow up to be a stewardess and fly all around the world.

The first time I did get to fly on an airplane was around 1970 to visit my grandmother in Florida. We may not have been quite as dressed up as travelers ten years earlier but I still remember that my mother wouldn’t let me wear jeans on the plane. The flight was wonderful and the stewardesses were always passing out something – blankets, pillows, drinks, magazines and at least one meal. They also took the time to be kind to a wide eyed little girl and her baby brother, even providing captain’s wings for us. To me, the landing had its own excitement as we got to disembark on the tarmac and then walk to the terminal. In retrospect I realize my mother wasn’t quite as thrilled as I since she was struggling with an active infant and purse and baby bag while walking down that step ladder from the plane. Nonetheless, the entire experience was an event, something that both the passengers and airline staff recognized as still being a special event and respected it as such.

Although I did not fulfill my childhood dream of becoming a stewardess, by the 1980’s I was still flying at least once a year. The first time I wore jeans on the plane I felt a momentary qualm thinking of my mother’s disapproval but one look around at my fellow passengers and I quickly got over it. Flying no longer felt like a privileged means of travel but instead it had become a fun and quick way to get somewhere.

Little did we realize just how unregulated and unrestricted air travel was in the 80’s and even the 90’s. People were still going with the passengers to the gates to see them off or to greet them when they arrived. There were no restrictions on what you could take on a plane (I assume weapons were restricted but I honestly don’t know). Even smoking was allowed in both the terminal and even on the plane. Stewardesses were still handing out everything on planes from food to pillows and even newspapers. The only thing you had to pay for was the alcohol and movies. I remember flying to Paris in the late 1980’s. Even though I was in coach it was a fabulous flight. Back then I smoked and had a seat in the smoking section. For the next half day I smoked, ate, read, saw a movie, and slept while the busy stewardesses handed me pillows, blankets, warm wet towels and at least 2 meals while always being nice and gracious. I think that was probably the height of the best that the airline industry offered. Little did we imagine just how much it would change in the next 20 years...

Historical Hillary

The pundits are having a field day attacking Obama’s rumored selection of Hillary for Secretary of State. I agree with them and think Obama will eventually regret letting the Clintons back onto the world stage. At the same time, the pundits are also attacking Hillary for her rumored acceptance of this post. Initially, I, too, thought it was a dumb move on her part. She would go from running her own show as Senator to working for the President and taking orders from him. She opens herself up to the possibility of being fired or having to execute orders she disagrees with. Not to forget also juggling for her attention would be her ADD husband who she will need to keep on a tight leash. And yet I realized there is a different way of looking at Hillary’s potential acceptance of the Secretary of State.

As Obama starts to announce his team, the pundits are reacting by analyzing the details and they keep forgetting the big picture. This will not be a typical administration and cabinet. Whomever he picks will be initially viewed through the prism of Obama’s historical presidency. To turn down an appointment will mean missing being a part of history. Of course this is true for every administration but none has ever been like Obama’s.

In a perfect world, once the historic election was over and America elected her first African-American president, his actual presidency should be viewed no differently than that of his predecessors. But it is different. Obama isn’t just our new president, to many he is a combination savior, rock star, politician, hero and preacher. There is this frenetic excitement surrounding him which will rub off onto anyone who is associated with him. Talk about being a part of the “in crowd”!

So if offered, accepting the position of Secretary of State would be nearly impossible to decline. To make it even more enticing is the fact that the country and the world are in terrible shape. The incoming administration has the chance to play a critical role, to be seen as a savior by solving a variety of crises; the economy, the growing jobless rate, the shrinking stock market, the banking and automobile failures, the continuing war in Iraq, growing problems in Afghanistan, concerns over Iran and Pakistan etc. etc.

To be a major player on the world stage would be a heady position for anyone. Like any politician, Hillary has a huge ego. Only something as dramatic as the chance to make the country and the world a better and safer place could appeal to her. Then add in being a part of the excitement and magic surrounding Barack Obama, the first African American president, who will not only lead this country but will do so with the majority of the citizens enthusiastically and loudly supporting him.

Therefore, in accepting the post of Secretary of State, Hillary must surely realize two things. First, that she would be a part of an historical Cabinet – the first administration to serve an African American president. And second, she knows that she might actually make a difference in today’ turbulent times. To be a part of history and the opportunity to make history – what person could turn down that opportunity?

A Question of Foresight

By now you have probably heard about the questionnaire that the Obama team has put together. Anyone wanting to work in his new administration is expected to complete all 63 questions and provide all requested information. It is totally outrageous especially for the party that supposedly is against the more intrusive Patriot Act laws.

When this questionnaire first surfaced, everyone zeroed in on question 61 – “Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used – even unfairly – to impugn or attack your character and qualification for government service? " Gee, can you say Bill Ayers? Just a bit hypocritical, don’t you think? And what about Whitewater? Somehow I doubt if Hillary will have to fill this out if she wants to be Secretary of State.

Actually I can picture these young lawyers and politicians sitting around and coming up with these questions. They are thinking that they want to avoid any of the pitfalls of past administrations by doing a comprehensive vetting on their own. Think about it. Does Obama strike you as the sort of man who would tolerate it if somebody embarrassed him, especially in the first few months of his presidency? I don’t think so, either.

Some of the questions are legitimate and should be asked. The typical ones about where you worked, what you did, who you worked with are all normal for any job. I remember the “Nanny Gate” so questions about Domestic Help are now de rigueur as are most of the financial questions but they take it too far. The four questions in the Domestic Help section are fine but the Financial Information section contains Questions 21 – 32 and then is followed by an entire Tax Information section with Questions 33 – 41. A little overkill, yes? Imagine trying to complete Question 32 – “Other than from relatives, or close and longstanding personal friends on occasions such as birthdays or seasonal holidays, have you or your spouse ever received a gift exceeding $50.00 in value? Please identify the donor, the value of the gift, the date received and the circumstances in which the gift was made.”

Many of the questions make me think that the authors of this questionnaire were young. Not because of the inexperience shown in coming up with the questions but because they didn’t take into consideration people who have been working for 25 or 30 years. There are too many questions where they ask questions about “have you ever” as in the above Question 32. Another example is Question 12 – "Speeches: Please identify all speeches you have given. If available please provide the text or recordings of each speech or identify any recordings of speeches of which you are aware of." Forgetting for a moment the obvious first thought of Obama’s San Francisco “bitter people” speech, my second thought is who can remember all of the speeches? Even in my own career, I couldn’t begin to remember all of the speeches I have given. Perhaps it is easy to answer if you are 32 but when you are 52 or even 62? “Ever” is a long time for some of us to remember this stuff…

Then there are the truly outrageous questions. Here are just a few of them:
#8 – Briefly describe the most controversial matters you have been involved with during the course of your career.

#13 Electronic communications – If you have even sent an electronic communication, including but not limited to an email, text message or instant message, that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect, please describe.

#14 Diaries – If you keep or have ever kept a diary that contains anything that could suggest a conflict of interest or be a possible source of embarrassment to you, your family, or the President-Elect, please describe.

Gee, see a trend? As I said in the beginning, I don’t think that Obama would be happy if anybody ever embarrassed him in any way. So let’s just ignore all those pesky laws about privacy and freedoms and really interrogate anyone who wants to be a part of his team. As for being hypocritical? It doesn’t matter, because as they see it, they are the winners and now they are the ones making the rules, except there are two potentially fatal flaws….

As everyone ridicules these questions they seem to be missing the obvious. Who is going to take the time to read all the completed questionnaires and attachments? Just filling out all the financial information with accompanying tax returns and quarterly statements will take pages and pages and require a tax expert to review. Then in addition to asking for copies of Diaries, Electronic statements and speeches, there is my favorite question, Question 10 – "Writings: Please list, and if readily available, provide a copy of each book, article, column or publication (including but not limited to any posts or comments on blogs or other websites) you have authored, individually or with others. Please list all aliases or “handles” you have used to communicate on the Internet.”

Putting aside the issue that this question just seems so wrong, who is going to read all the stuff that would be applicants send them? Many of the men and women wanting to be a part of this new administration are prolific writers with regular columns or blogs and even numerous lengthy books, all of which will start to pile up as they are sent in with the questionnaires.

This brings me to the final problem. I can envision a few years down the road when a scandal breaks out about someone in the Obama administration. (And let’s face it, there always are scandals.) Except in this case, when Obama tries to disown the person, the accused will point to Question XX and say they had told then about this problem. But in all the paperwork that inundated the team Obama’s people somehow missed this. Instead of pleading ignorance, as all previous administrations could do, the Obama team will have no excuse. So the lesson is, if you are going to ask everyone to fill out this questionnaire and send in all this material, Obama’s team better have somebody read it all or it might come back and bite them someday.

Short Retort

Pundits are all discussing the notion that Hillary might be the next Secretary of State. For her own sake I hope she turns the job down. Why? If she is Secretary of State, can’t you just hear Bill telling her “Hey babe, I remember when I met this guy and we blah blah blah”? I mean can you imagine how annoying that would be? Sure on one hand it could be helpful to have your husband’s expert advice. But how would you like to be selected as the next Secretary of State and then not only have a husband who is telling you how to do your job but who is also chummy with the other heads of states? Besides, being in the Senate is something she has achieved that is separate from anything her husband has done. It is her turf and she is good at it and she should stay there.

Life Imitating Articles

Ok this is weird. After finishing my two-part blog I turned on the TV while I read other articles on the net. I wasn’t paying much attention until I heard the following statement “Some firms need to be allowed to fail so that other firms can be allowed to succeed.” What did this guy just say? Wow. This is exactly the same thing I had just concluded. I had to hear more and thanks to Tee Vo I could back up the program and listen to the entire interview.

I have never heard of the man who was interviewed, Jeb Hensarling, a Congressman from Texas, but I certainly like what he said. To paraphrase him, he said that a lot of industries are struggling today so why should we bail out some and not others. Plus the federal government is becoming the lender of last resort and that the plan could fundamentally change the role of government in America.

As for Detroit, Congressman Hensarling continued, “they are producing high cost products that consumers don’t want to buy and so now we have Washington on the verge of giving them a bailout simply because we’ve all heard of them and they have high priced lobbyists in Washington.” He went on to add that “it is the small business people, they’re the ones that create the jobs around America and that with the $50 billion that’s aimed at Detroit, the average small business is capitalized with $25,000, you could create two million new small businesses in America. If you’re going to dole out money to somebody dole it out to small businesses. Don’t dole it out to a failing Detroit”. Towards the end of the interview he reiterated his belief that you need to allow people and companies to fail so that they can learn how to succeed and that government is hurting not helping with the bail outs.

I like this guy! He talks like a true Republican, someone who believes in small government and laissez faire policies. The Republican Party is looking for new, fresh faces and I think this is a man to watch. And I am not the only one who thinks this. To find out more about him I went to his website, http://www.jebhensarling.com/, which states that he has won a number of awards and recognitions for his conservative stands including being recognized as the “Best and Brightest” in 2007 by the American Conservative Union. I agree. So remember that name, Jeb Hensarling, a man who I truly hope continues to have a bright future in Washington.

*T-shirt available on Amazon.com

American's Evolution - Part 2

Previously I argued that this country has been evolving from an agricultural society to a manufacturing society and is now moving to a service industry. I wondered if the demise of the car industry in America was simply an extension of this evolution and as such should be allowed to die and not be saved with an infusion of cash by Congress.

It was brought to my attention that allowing the car industry to fail will have a domino affect on all the other companies dependent on it. A multitude of smaller companies who provide materials to the car industry will then fail if our car industry goes under. Another argument is that the car industry had been producing what people wanted – big cars. Now the demand has suddenly changed to smaller more fuel efficient cars but the auto industry needs a few years to change their production lines. So the bailout is simply to help the industry while they redesign their factories to start providing smaller cars.

Both are valid arguments. As for the latter one, I remember the 1970s when we went through this the first time. Everyone worried that our car industry would die because Japan was making smaller cars and our industry made big gas guzzlers. Thirty years later and I don’t understand how the exact same thing can be happening. How could they have once again been so off guard as to let this happen again?

As to the satellite companies that could fail if the car industry goes under I have always wondered if Ford or Oldsmobile or any of the original car makers worried that they were putting the horse and buggies out of business. No one really cared about the blacksmiths or leather makers or any of the other businesses dependent on horses when the country evolved to cars as our means of transportation. Except, you know what? These men didn’t go on the dole when their businesses failed. Instead many of them evolved from servicing horses to cars. Leather makers began to make car seats instead of saddles and buggy seats while stable masters swept out their stables and converted them to garages. Given a chance, people will evolve and grow. But when you put them on welfare then you are denying them the incentive to change.

So maybe by allowing our car industry to live on we are actually hampering this country. Perhaps there are young inventors out there with great ideas for new types of cars that don’t need to be powered by fossil fuels. I have every belief that someone will somehow fill the void left by the car industry and that this new industry would help this country further evolve away from our dependency on gas. But by giving our existing car companies bailouts to continue as is then the government is stifling our chance to grow and evolve. And if you spend all of your energy treading in water in the same place then you will eventually die without ever moving forward.

I was unsure when I started this if I thought the government should bailout the car companies or not. I think I have now convinced myself that it would be detrimental to this country in the long run. In the short run, yes, for the demise of our car industry will be painful but I am now of the belief that out of this pain will come a new and better industry and country.

As for this country moving towards service industries and away from manufacturing, perhaps that isn’t that bad after all. What would be wrong with having a nation of thinkers, inventors and service companies to help make this a better world? Don’t forget that services also include hospitals and schools and not just banks and hotels. Plus for those who still want to work with their hands, there is still a need for plumbers and mechanics and builders among many other highly paid skilled service jobs.

There would always be some manufacturing, just as we still have some farming but it wouldn’t be our primary source of employment. Besides, show me one factory worker, one immigrant, one migrant worker, one welfare mother who doesn’t want more for their children and that more always includes a higher education. So let’s move forward and become that nation of thinkers and inventors. Let America supply the world not only with our food and products but also with our ideas and knowledge and inventions.

America’s Evolution – Part 1

America’s car industry is dying… again. Congress wants to bail them out (again) but I am not sure if that is the right thing to do. I can’t help but wonder if the car industry is like a dying person who would be artificially kept alive if given an injection of money. I don’t know if GM and Ford can continue on their own any more and if they can’t then why should we keep them going? Maybe these companies have run their course and it’s time for them to close their doors.

I think what we may be seeing is the final death throes of manufacturing in this country. For the past fifty years we have slowly been evolving from a manufacturing society to a service society. I don’t know if this is even something bad but merely a result of becoming a more advanced nation. This is not an original idea yet I don’t hear people talking about it very much and I think we need to have this national discussion. For my own edification I want to think through how we got where we are and then try to figure out if this is good or bad and what we should do next.

As this country advanced we have continuously evolved and yet each time it took violence to help us move up the chain of evolution. Like most new nations, America first started out as an agricultural nation. Once this country’s metals were discovered then ambitious and sometimes ruthless men began to find ways to manufacture these metals into needed products. Steel, ore, iron, coal and the like were the building blocks on which this nation stepped up a level on the evolutionary chain.

Yet moving from an agricultural society to a manufacturing society was a brutal and bloody transition. It started with the Civil War which was primarily a fight between the manufacturing North against the agricultural South. The final blow to our agricultural dominance was the Dust Bowl during the Great Depression which destroyed millions of acres of farmland.

War World II ushered in the peak manufacturing years. After years of disuse during the depression, our factories were producing at maximum levels to provide the materials and products needed to fight a war. After the war, these same factories continued on peak levels but now to produce all the new products that the young and growing middle class were clamoring for after years of deprivation. Not only was there a demand for goods but there was also a new demand for housing. This country lost for good untold millions of acres of what could have been productive farm land. Now this land was irrevocably gone as the suburbs were being born.

During the 1950’s and 1960’s America couldn’t manufacture items fast enough to satisfy this country. The birth of the suburbs issued in a whole new array of needs from all the things housewives were now demanding to have in their house to the products required to maintain the new lawns. Midwife to the birth of the suburban appetite for products was television which now told everybody what they needed to have.

By the early 70's the high demand for products tapered off yet as the need for big ticket items diminished, the 1970s started a whole new world of consumer goods – electronics and computers. Not only were these products in high demand but due to continuing technological advances products quickly became obsolete thus requiring new purchases. Since the 70's entire industries were born, thrived and then died within a handful of years. Think 8 track cassettes and VCR's for example.

Although our demand for products still remains high, at some point we stopped producing these goods. America is moving up one more step on the evolutionary chain from being a manufacturing country to being a service country. Yet when and how did this happen? Was it inevitable and simply the result of being an advanced nation? If that is true, then government’s plans to “rescue” these factories with obscene amounts of money may be pointless and a complete waste of our money.

I want to explore this some more but its time to take a break so I will finish this up in a day or two. Meanwhile, here is something to think about. If Congress is this upset over the possibility of losing our car industry would they be willing for their children or grandchildren to forego a higher education in order to work in a car factory? Would you?

Short Retort

Gee, anybody want to hazard a guess as to who Time Magazine's Man of the Year will be this year? :-)

Unintended Consequences

President elect Barack Obama. The country really did it but now we all wonder what will an Obama presidency mean? One thing everyone agrees on is that Obama and his fellow Democrats will be raising our taxes; the only question is what income level will it be based on. I don’t think it really matters as it will be the difference between high and higher taxes. For in addition to federal income taxes, there is also talk of increasing payroll taxes, capital gains taxes, taxes on small businesses and the list goes on and on. That’s just federal taxes; states are also proposing new tax increases. For example, in New York, Bloomberg has already announced higher taxes in the form of tolls on all bridges and has even proposed a tax on plastic bags at the grocery store.

There is, however, good news for some people. No, I don’t mean the low income or no income groups whose outstretched hands will finally be filled. I have a completely different group in mind. For if you find your taxes going higher and higher there is one thing most people could do that will immediately lower your tax burden. What is this talisman to protect you from more taxes? Move to a state without income taxes!

Seven states currently do not have state income taxes: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington and Wyoming. I truly doubt if too many people would be interested in moving to Alaska, South Dakota or Wyoming, especially as I just heard that in this, the first week of November, South Dakota had over 30 inches of snow! That leaves Florida, Nevada, Texas and Washington as possible relocation sites for overtaxed folks from the other 43 states.

If you are an employer who wants to either get out from the burden of your taxes or open a new plant or office you will also consider one other important aspect – right to work. Florida, Nevada and Texas are all right to work states meaning that employees can’t be forced to join a union but instead can decide for themselves if they want to join one. With the potential passage of the new union open voting law, the option to join or not may become an increasingly important one to both business owners and employees.

Once the higher taxes start to impact people, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a small boomlet in Florida, Nevada and Texas as people move here to escape their high state taxes. All three states also have large retiree populations and with a lot of people retiring in the near future there is no reason to think that they wouldn’t continue to retire there. This could help the lagging new housing construction and the sales of existing houses in these states. The economy may not be ripe for new businesses, yet I would think that if it were to occur it would happen in greater proportions in Florida, Nevada and Texas. I could also envision that more companies will relocate to these states, too. They offer ideal situations; no state taxes, right to work, lower housing prices than in many areas and not to forget Florida and Nevada’s warm climates.

If you currently live in Florida, Nevada or Texas you are already benefiting from having lower taxes. But if there is a small migration of people and companies to your states then this could mean a faster recovery of the housing market along with increased state revenue from the larger populations. Plus more people mean more business for your local stores. The job market might also increase if companies do start to relocate to your state, too.

I think that it would be extremely ironic if Florida and Texas were to benefit from the increased taxes as proposed by the liberals. Ever since the Bush elections liberals have despised Floridians with an intensity I have never seen before. To a lesser extent they also dislike Texas which is the heart of Bush country and southern Republicans. (Nevada, unfortunately, is Harry Reid’s state and as such is beloved by Democrats.)

So maybe Texans and Floridians should feel a bit smug when they hear how Obama and the liberals plan to raise taxes for they know that they could actually benefit from it! Now all they need to do is make sure the folks who move into their states to avoid higher taxes eventually become good southern republicans who will vote against Obama in 2012!

Generation Jones

Thank you Society Watcher for commenting on my last post. It turns out I am not the only one who wants to distinguish between the older and younger baby boomers. Unfortunately, since my retirement, I no longer get to see one of my favorite magazines, American Demographics, or else I might have been aware that a sociologist has created a new group: Generation Jones.

This new demographic group consists of those born between 1954 and 1965, bridging the Baby Boomers and GenX groups. Jonathan Pontell, who defined this new group in a book a few years ago, called them Generation Jones because of their desire to keep up with the Jones’s.

Basically Jonathon Pontell and I arrived at similar conclusions – there are a lot of younger Baby Boomers and they have had very different life experiences than the older boomers. But we differ on how to treat this difference. He wants to rewrite the long-time definition of Baby Boomers by carving out this new group – Generation Jones, whereas I feel that although they need greater recognition, this group is still a part of the Baby Boomers. (Of course I could also question why the group with the most people doesn’t retain the name of Baby Boomers and the smaller group given a different name!)

Instead of rewriting the Baby Boom definition I want to work within the group. I look at the difference between the first and last Baby Boomers as being similar to Seniors and Freshmen in high school. Seniors in high school have a very different outlook, temperament, goals and maturity level than Freshmen yet both are in the same high school and call themselves high schoolers. Therefore, I don’t see a problem of having subsets within the Baby Boomer category. As I mentioned in the last post, this topic has greatly interested me and in fact I have been fiddling around with the idea of identifying three Baby Boomer subsets: True Boomers, Wanna Be’s and Tag Alongs.

My three subsets of Boomers were based on their age during a few key dates in our country’s history. I defined True Boomers as those born between 1951 and 1946. This group was the most impacted by all the events in the 1960s and has been the group the media focuses on. True Boomers were 12 to 17 years old when Kennedy was assassinated and five years later during the assassinations in 1968 they were 17 to 22 years old. Wanna Be’s were born between 1952 and 1957. As the name implies they want to be like the older group but they were too young to be in the forefront of the 60’s revolution. They may say they remember where they were when Kennedy was assassinated but they were only 6 to 11 years old, and while some might have been impacted by the events that happened in 1968 when they were 11 to 16 years old, this group was definitely affected by Watergate and Nixon’s resignation in 1974, as they were 17 to 22 at the time. The last group, Tag Alongs, were the youngest boomers born between 1958 and 1964. This group was not impacted by any of the events in the 1960’s and instead came of age during the 1970’s.

I feel that using these subsets within the Baby Boomers group is a better solution than completely changing the definition of Baby Boomers and adding a new group. This new group, Generation Jones, includes people born between 1954 and 1964 and I am sure that those born in the mid 1950’s would strongly balk if told they were no longer considered as Baby Boomers. Perhaps those born in the early 1960’s wouldn’t mind being classified as Gen Jones instead of Baby Boomers but I still think this is the wrong approach. But no matter what you call them, this large group has become an important and finally recognized part of our society.

Electing Another Baby Boomer

No surprise that journalists are continuing to get something wrong but this error is really bugging me. After the election I keep hearing and reading how we have elected our first post Vietnam president; a man who isn’t a baby boomer. They have the first part right but the second part is wrong. Barack Obama is a baby boomer.

Baby boomers were the children of the Greatest Generation who were settling down, marrying and having children after World War II. To be specific, demographers have always defined boomers as those born from 1946 to 1964. Yes, this is a large group of births but most people don’t realize that the peak of births didn’t occur until 1957. In total, nearly 76 million babies were born during the baby boom and half were born from 1956 to 1964.

Although Barack is an exception, many of these second wave of baby boomers were the younger brothers and sisters of the older baby boomers. Although they are all boomers, the journalists were right in that these two groups had very different life experiences. The older boomers were teens or young adults during most of the Vietnam War and were at the forefront of all the movements of the 1960’s; civil rights, women rights, gay rights. While the younger boomers were, well, young.

I should know as I, too, was a baby boomer born during the second half of this demographic group. This topic, especially the major differences of the two groups has always fascinated me. For example, don’t ask my fellow younger boomers where they were when Kennedy was shot because they’ll be quick to tell you that they were still in diapers or just learning to read at the time. But do ask us where we were in 1981 when Reagan was shot or when the Challenger exploded, two events which greatly impacted us for we were teens or young adults at the time. As for the pivotal year of 1968, when so much seemed to happen in our country, the youngest boomers ranged in age from 4 to 11 years old. Personally my only memory of the assassination of Martin Luther King was being angry that my cartoons on TV had been canceled for the news coverage.

So Barack Obama is as much of a baby boomer as Bill Clinton or George Bush. I am sure this will frustrate anyone born after 1964 because the rest of the country is definitely tired of baby boomers. Yet as part of the second wave of boomers he does have a much different life experience than the older boomers. He, himself, has already alluded to this when he was defending his association with Bill Ayers by saying he was only 8 when Ayers was bombing buildings. He truly is a post Vietnam child who grew up in a world that was different from the past boomer presidents. Yet, let there be no mistake on this, Barack Obama is still a baby boomer.

God Bless America

I am so very proud of my country. I may not agree with the country’s decision but that doesn’t take away my love and pride of my fellow citizens. The election of Barack Obama is not something I wanted yet it is something I can understand. Listening to his victory speech I was once again struck by his blend of preaching and orating that lifted his speeches into inspiring sermons of hope and change. You had to have a heart of stone to not be affected by these speeches. I was also moved by the look on the faces of those listening to him. From long-term politicians to Hollywood to average people, all had a look of pure adoration while tears of joy creased their cheeks. I truly am happy for them, especially the new voters; the young college kids who got involved for the first time and the African Americans who will now understand that their vote matters, that they matter.

This country made history last night in electing its first African American president. We also did something that continues to awe the rest of the world; a peaceful transition of power between two opposing groups. I think many people were worried about the election process itself. On top of the concerns that ACORN generated, it seemed as if every news channel was requesting that you call them if you see voter fraud. But there were no major or even minor problems which is pretty incredible. We had more people voting and though the polling places were definitely overtaxed it still worked. And again, kudos to the people themselves who stood in lines for 3 or 4 or even 5 hours so that they could vote.

Today is not the time to discuss why I disagree with Obama on almost all of his political ideas or even to analyze what his presidency might bring. There will be four long years for that. No, today is for the victors. To celebrate this great victory, not only over John McCain, who did a valiant job, but a victory over one of the last vestiges of our national nightmare, slavery and the continued ill treatment of a large segment of our society. America will never be perfect, no one or country is, yet we have showed the world, and more importantly ourselves, that after last night we are one step closer to completely fulfilling our country’s promise as set forth in the Declaration of Independence:

We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their CREATOR, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

God Bless America

Short Retort

No matter how long the lines please go out and vote on Tuesday. Even though all the polls show Obama winning you still need to vote. If you support Obama,well, you could stay home, but I suppose the vote is not just for the man but for history - electing the first black president. On the other hand, if you support McCain, he really really needs your vote. And if still undecided, here is one more reason to vote for McCain. If Obama is elected he is planning to create a new ambassador at large position. What for you ask? Well get ready to gag - meet the proposed new Ambassador at Large for Climate Change - Al Gore. So go out and vote on Tuesday!VOTE!!!

The Shadow Man

I’ve been listening to a lot of pundits this weekend so I am sorry that I can’t remember who said this but somebody stated that the election is now between Obama and himself. Either you are voting for Obama or you are voting against him. And that made a lot of sense to me because Senator McCain has never really stood out. It felt as if he were a shadow to Obama’s incandescent personality. McCain was never able to define himself with a single message which stuck unlike Obama’s continuous message of hope and change. Even worse, McCain let Obama define who he was.

Actually, I believe that McCain’s campaign has been overshadowed by three people. From the start Obama associated McCain with President Bush. At first the comparison was used to paint him as someone who will keep us in the Iraq war and perhaps get us into new wars. (By the way, did anybody see the big coverage on the news stating that October had the lowest level of deaths in Iraq? No, I didn’t see that either….)

When the economy blew up, McCain had the chance to get away from the Bush label. He tried to take control but he fumbled this opportunity so that Obama was once again viewed as the one who was on top of the issue and had the answers. Actual truth doesn’t matter as long as people believed that the economic problems were due to Bush, and that McCain is just more of the same. Obama’s continuous advertisements showing Bush’s face made it nearly impossible for McCain to break out from behind Bush’s shadow.

The second person who defined McCain’s campaign was his choice for VP, Sarah Palin. This governor appeared out of nowhere and initially electrified the Republican Party. She became the face of McCain’s campaign as McCain himself once again drifted out of sight. Some say she is still an asset to McCain by energizing the conservatives in the party and appealing to the women voters. Others will argue that she was detrimental because of her inexperience which was highlighted by her less than stellar interviews with Gibson and Curic. But, love her or hate her she became the face of the Republican ticket and overshadowed McCain who got lost in the background.

The “October surprise” was the best thing to happen to McCain. For the last person who defined McCain’s campaign is none other than Joe the Plumber. His random question nearly brought down Obama. First, everybody likes and relates to Joe the Plumber, an average guy with dreams of making it rich someday. But Obama’s answer to “spread the wealth” is anathema to all conservatives and even some independents. For the first time it showed the true intent of this most liberal candidate.

But what really had people rallying around Joe was the outrageous treatment of the press. Conservatives had already been incensed when the press attacked Palin and her family a month ago but as she was a public figure it went with the territory. Conversely, Joe the Plumber is one of us so when the press attacked him and divulged private information it truly angered the public. For the first time McCain had a face which complemented him instead of eclipsing him.

I believe that McCain was overshadowed by Bush, Palin and Joe the Plumber and only the last was truly advantageous to him. Against him is Barack Obama, the unknown freshman senator, who’s strong and commanding presence combined with a brilliant campaign has totally eclipsed John McCain just as he had earlier defeated Hillary Clinton.

On Tuesday it appears that more people will be voting for Obama than against, except for the 1 in 7 that are still undefined. Personally I think they will actually end up voting against Obama. Their long hesitation is likely due to the fact that it might feel a bit uncomfortable to pull the lever for Obama. Maybe it’s his race or perhaps it is simply that foreign looking name but many of these undecided will turn to McCain. Unfortunately, I don’t think it will matter in the long run. McCain has spent too long in Obama’s shadow and like the groundhog in February, this means that the Republicans are in for a long dark winter.

A Lesson on Democracy

A teacher wrote to tell me that she had asked her high school students to evaluate the convention speeches by the two candidates. She had looked up the speeches shown on CNN and wrote “Obama's has a grand introduction with inspiring music, 5 minutes of thundering applause, and panning the cheering stadium. McCain's begins with his speech and a shot of a guy in the back holding a sign that says McCain does NOT support vets.” The sad state of the media is that stories like this are no longer unusual and you almost begin to expect this kind of biased coverage of the two candidates.

The writer then concluded “I try very hard to give a favorable introduction to both candidates, without bias, and also include the ideas that we benefit greatly from a 2 party system rather than a totalitarian 1 party system.” Wow. How disturbing is that? You would think that by high school the students would know about our history, our heritage as a democratic country and why this is better than a one party government. It is scary to think that the idea of America is something that now needs to be taught.

As for this election, I have no doubt that the majority of teenagers are supporting the young black man versus the old white guy. There is more than some truth in the old joke about being idealistic when young but becoming conservative the moment you get your first paycheck. When you don’t have any money it is easy to agree with Obama’s “spreading the wealth”. Anyway, I am sure the teens are very enthusiastic supporters of Obama and probably wouldn’t listen if someone tried to tell them otherwise.

Maybe this teacher has the right idea; to try to be unbiased and yet to expose the students to the blatant misuse of power by the media in favor of Obama. On one hand, you hate to disillusion the teens by showing them the seamier side of politics or even by helping them see for themselves that this is yet one more instance where life is not fair. So finding the bias on their own might make them more cynical and distrustful of not just the politicians but also of the supposedly unbiased media. Yet lessons like this will better equip them to make judgments about what they are seeing, and to learn to question even what “trusted” authoritative figures are telling them. And that might be a good idea after all.