YA GOTTA KNOW WHEN TO FOLD 'EM

On August 19, Jm Coogan's column in the Cape Cod Times dealt with people, notably athletes but others as well, continuing in their careers past the time they should have retired. Mr. Coogan made some excellent points while focusing on the on-again off-again retirement of former Green Bay Packer and now New York Jets quarterback Brett Favre. Coogan cited himself, along with Red Sox great Ted Williams, as examples of those who didn't wait to deteriorate into a shadow of their former selves before coming aware of the handwriting on the wall, and who packed it in while on top. I don't know about Mr. Coogan but he's absolutely right about  the Splendid Splinter.

He also lists some who hung around too long. Among them, Willie Mays, Muhammad Ali, Joe Louis, and others. Mr. Coogan is certainly correct as far as it goes, but he fails to take into account some pertinent facts. Willie Mays was a legitimate superstar, a true hall of famer, who did, indeed, stay too long at the ball. Joe Louis falls into the same category – one of the greatest boxers of all time who ought to have left the ring sooner than he did. Both, however, fell upon hard times as they aged and needed the money. Unlike today's athletes, many of whom couldn't  play Double A baseball back in the days when there were only eight teams in each major league, they didn't make a great deal of money compared to today's figures. There was no free agency. They were the property, virtually for life, of the teams with which they signed contracts, and they had no agents to shepherd them through their careers and guide them in making profitable investments.

Others he names, like Trot Nixon, were never stars at all. Nixon was at best a journeyman player who got a lot of local publicity in “Red Sox Nation” but never achieved national acclaim. Thanks to today's inflated salaries and avaricious agents, money should not be a problem in Mr. Nixon's post baseball life. He and others, entertainers and politicians as well as athletes, do seem to be reluctant to leave the limelight. In the case of legitimate superluminaries who want to continue to bask in the glow of adulation, it's understandable, if regrettable. There are, however, those who were never as good as their public relations people and the media would have us believe; those who swallowed the hyperbolic rhetoric that was being broadcast about them. Or did they? Perhaps, in their inner beings, they knew that they weren't really Superman, but just Clark Kent in a fancy costume.

Muhammad Ali was, in my opinion, one of those. He called himself “The Greatest” long before the media picked it up and forced it down the throats of a gullible public. In a reversal of ordinary circumstances, he fed the hype to the press and they either believed it or took advantage of it, and of him. In reality, and I think there are many who agree but won't admit it because of political correctness, he was not the greatest heavyweight fighter who ever climbed into a ring. Not even close. He competed in an era when mediocrity was the name of the game. His record of 56 wins, 5 losses and 37 knockouts doesn't stand up to that of Rocky Marciano's 49 wins, 0 losses and 43 knockouts. The Hard Rock from Brockton is the only professional boxer in any weight class to have never lost a fight. You decide who deserves to be called the greatest.

It's very possible that Bret Favre may well be closer to a Muhammad Ali than to a Rocky Marciano. Favre holds several passing records and is closing in on others, but among them he he has the most career interceptions with 300. He ranks 14th in passer ratings with a mediocre 84.8. Steve Young holds the record with a career 96.8. Favre's 61% completion mark ranks him 13th all time, in an extremely long career. It's hard to imagine that he can improve on these negatives at his age with a team like the Jets. He is far more likely to add to his negative stats. A big part of his accomplishments is the result of his ability to avoid injuries. How long can that continue in his late thirties? Yes, Mr. Coogan, it appears that Brett Favre has stayed too long at the dance. Into which group do you think Curt Schilling will fall?

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

EVERYBODY VOTES – ONE WAY OR ANOTHER

It's that time again. The season for all the self righteous would-be patriots in the media to get on their soap boxes and demand that everyone get out and vote. These holier-than-thou types insist that all of us have an obligation to our country to cast a ballot. They tell us it's our sacred duty to do so. As if that weren't enough, they chastise those who don't take part in an election – any election. What bovine excrement!

Do we really want everyone to vote? This kind of thinking is not only misguided but counter productive, and might even be construed as anti-American. First and foremost, there's no such thing as a non voter, inasmuch as a vote is, in the final analysis, an expression of opinion. A choice. When an informed person makes a conscious decision not to vote, he has made a choice. He has expressed an opinion. He has made an unequivocal statement that he has no preference as to the outcome and really doesn't care who wins or which issue carries the day. In other words, he will be perfectly satisfied no matter how the question at hand is resolved. Wy, then, should he vote?

The right to vote is just that – a right to go to the polls on election day and express your preference, if you have one. It is not an obligation to vote. There is no penalty for not voting. Just as all citizens registered to do so have a right to vote, so do all citizens, should they so choose, have an equal right not to vote. Contrary to popular belief, there are those among us who are passive or disinterested regarding any public question or candidate and therefore have no opinion to express. Why, then, should they be coerced into casting a ballot? That's pure lunacy. There's no reason a person should be castigated for not voting if he honestly has no interest in the outcome. or chooses to abstain.

There are, in fact, many people who absolutely should not vote. If a person hasn't studied the candidates or truly doesn't favor one over the other[s], or one side of an issue over the opposite, then that individual has an obligation to abstain. He ought, in fact, be prohibited from voting. If a person is not able to read and comprehend the ballot, in English, which all citizens are required to learn (although there are exceptions) then he or she should not be allowed to vote. What's worse, if enough people are coerced into voting without sincere convictions or sufficient knowledge, then the election itself might be unfairly skewed and an unfortunate, even chaotic, outcome could  result.

There is what many consider to be a well founded belief that only knowledgeable citizens ought to be allowed to vote. There is always a significant number of people who are ignorant of the facts at hand, completely oblivious to the benefits or consequences portended by a victory or defeat on either side. They cast ballots after a cursory eenie-meeny-minie-mo with no regard as to how such crass indifference might influence the future of their country. Or town. Or school funding. Or any issue.

Citizens, and the term is used advisedly in this era of rampant uncontrolled immigration, have a more pressing than ever obligation to become familiar with the issues. All of us should carefully study the candidates and question their motives and their core beliefs. We should become familiar with their personal lives, which will certainly indicate what can reasonably be expected of their performances in office. Find out who their friends and advisors might be and in what they believe. Determine from whom they get their financing and will thus more than likely expect a return on their investment. All potential voters should look past the rhetoric and the hype and search beyond the mainstream media with its meaningless and easily slanted sound bites. It is incumbent upon everyone to learn as much as possible, keep an open mind, and avoid the knee jerk party vote. Look where that kind of thinking got Taxa… - our home state.

So whenever you hear some wannabe pundit telling you that it's everyone's duty to vote, remember that he's ignorantly regurgitating some mindless rhetoric without having considered the ramifications. Or maybe he's just dumb.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

JUST SEND A MEMO
 
   When those in charge become incapable of, or unwilling to, make the decisions that are clearly their responsibility, they call a meeting. Then, in case things go wrong, they can at last share the blame that should be exclusively theirs, or, better still, pass it on to someone else entirely. One might believe that retirement would liberate one from this collegial nonsense, but one would be mistaken. Age brings the need to avail oneself of the services of a squadron of professionals, principally doctors, with whom one must often meet. Family matters requiring input from kinfolk necessitate meetings, sometimes with lawyers. Neighborhood problems must be discussed at meetings. If you belong to a church, meetings will be as common as prayer for a variety of reasons, most likely fund raising. Various town bodies will hold meetings they'll try to obligate you to attend. Any number of business, fraternal, or social organizations you made the mistake of joining will, inevitably, conduct meetings, and they'll all expect you to take part.
      It's hard to believe, but some misguided people actually enjoy meetings. A few even think they're productive. Nothing could be further from the truth. Meetings accomplish two things better than any other forum. They give those who conduct them a golden opportunity to parade their massive egos before a captive audience, and they give the sycophants in attendance an unparalleled  stage upon which to display their ignorance and to flaunt their fawning flattery.
    Meetings are usually convened and chaired by an authority figure or group. It might be the boss and/or the board of directors discussing company policy. It could be Grandfather deciding a family matter. Perhaps the parish council wants to talk about which charitable organizations church funds ought to be disbursed. Whoever or whatever instigates the current tedium, they set the agenda and control the proceedings. They decide who may speak and who may not. Simply by carefully choosing those upon whom they call they predetermine the outcome, thereby rendering the entire proceeding superfluous as well as somnolent.   
     All meetings have two purposes. There is the stated purpose, which is to impart information and gather feedback. If that is indeed the case, then it's a pitifully ineffective way to accomplish those objectives. There is also the unstated raison d'etre which has already been mentioned: for those in charge to embark on a monumental ego trip and to give the butt kissers in the crowd a forum in which to ply their trade.
     Sometimes those in command actually believe that a meeting is the best and fairest way to disseminate information and receive in return valuable feedback. This is clearly fatuous. Haven't they been watching Congress in action? Or, perhaps more accurately, Congress inaction?
     Some of those who attend meetings, usually under coercion, often have their own agenda. They will seize the moment to curry favor with their superiors. They will all but applaud and cry “Bravo!” at anything an exalted one suggests. Another percentage will find it necessary to take the opportunity to call attention to themselves. This, they believe, is their theater and their audience. By making what they no doubt consider brilliant comments and, worse, by asking what they believe to be superbly insightful questions, they hope to liberate their light from the bushel under which, they are convinced, it has hitherto been obscured. All they're doing, of course, is making fools of themselves and prolonging the agony for the majority who, wisely, want to be anywhere but there.
   If you're in charge of making the tough calls, and you truly want something done, then have the courage to assign it to the person who will be responsible for carrying it out, preferably in writing. Be sure to notify all interested parties as to the the action you have taken. That will eliminate any future ambiguity. You have put yourself on record as to exactly what you want and whom you want to do it. That person, in turn, will have been ordered to undertake a particular project and is bound to execute his mission within clearly defined parameters and all will be aware of that fact. No weaseling out from under if things go wrong. Best of all, no time will have been wasted in a meeting.

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

PLAUSIBLE, BUT UNFEASIBLE

    The town of Westport, MA, is considering implementing a four day work week for municipal employees. Under the proposal, town hall, which presently closes at four in the afternoon every day, would stay open an extra 2 ½ hours on Mondays and 1 ½ hours on the other three days. It would be closed on Fridays but employees would still work a thirty-five hour week as they do now. All this in what well might be considered an ill conceived attempt to reduce energy costs for the town, cut commuting costs for the workers and, perhaps most pertinent, make some political hay with the “green” voters.
   The plan, according to its supporters, would enable energy savings by allowing the building to be heated or cooled for four days instead of five. Think about that and do the math, which they evidently haven't. If the work week, as stated, will still be thirty-five hours long, then it follows that the building is going to require heating, or cooling, 35 hours a week. It doesn't matter that those hours will be spread over four days instead of five. It's still going to consume thirty-five hours worth of power per week. The rest of the time the heating or cooling will be powered down, of course, but can't be completely turned off, so nothing changes. That should be fairly obvious but, evidently, it isn't.
  There are other pros and cons, of course, but one of the biggest objections is rarely, if ever mentioned. No business, whether a municipality, a large corporation, or a small convenience store, exists in a vacuum. In order to function efficiently and, in the case of a business, make a profit, the hours of operation must be compatible with those of its competitors, clientele, and all the other entities with which it must interact.
  All businesses must deal with customers and suppliers. Town departments, like every office, are going to need commodities of all kinds, from paper clips to insurance, to heavy construction equipment, and all kinds of things in between. They all have to be procured from someone. They have to be purchased or leased. That means there has to be interaction between the purchasing department and personnel representing the other businesses who offer the needed items.
    This is where maintaining the thirty-five hour work week is exposed as the myth it really is. It simply can't be done. No matter how many hours you add to your day most, if not all, of your suppliers will continue to close up shop at around 5:00 and stay open on Fridays. Most of those additional late afternoon hours will be spent in futility, unable to conduct business because the people with whom you need to transact business will not be available. You'll be paying for a thirty-five hour work week but only getting about 28 hours of work.
    Then there's the matter of employee expenses. There may be a minimal saving on gasoline and other commuting costs. There are, however, other considerations. The kids will still be getting out of school at the same time while mom will be working a longer day. What will happen to them? Where will they spend that time? Along with safety considerations, will increased day care expenses be required? Will homework and/or schoolwork suffer? Will the evening meal be disrupted? Perhaps more money will be spent on take out and fast food, with the concomitant sacrifice in quality, nutrition and valuable family time.
    For a plan like this one to work efficiently it would have to be adopted universally. All businesses would have to participate, and their hours would need to coincide. It wouldn't do much good if some businesses opted to close on Fridays while others chose Mondays, or Wednesdays. It behooves Westport and other towns and businesses who might be contemplating something of this nature to consider all the unintended consequences of such a drastic plan before jumping on the bandwagon in a misguided attempt to conserve energy.