I Coulda Piddled You a Better Looking Waterfall

In the 1920's and 1930's, John D. Rockefeller commissioned workmen to build a 30+ mile system of carriage roads on Mount Desert Island. Rockefeller disliked cars, riding in them only when necessary. He preferred horse-drawn carriages, and had the roads built so he could indulge his pleasure. The roads and much of the other land he owned on the island were later donated to Acadia National Park.

While vacationing there, my wife and I decided to hike the Hadlock Brook Loop, near Hadlock Pond in Northeast Harbor. It's a 4-mile walk, highlighted by "the highest waterfall on Mount Desert Island" (a whopping 40 feet). The carriage road passes over the brook on Waterfall Bridge, a beautiful stone structure built in 1924.

We all have had underwhelming experiences in life, and seeing this waterfall is one of mine. It had rained only one day in the previous three weeks, so the brook had hardly any water. Upon seeing the "waterfall", my reaction generated the title to this piece.

I am sure that, when fed by melting snow or days of rain, the waterfall is probably pretty impressive, even on its' small scale. That day, though, I could have done just as well by drinking a quart of water and letting nature take its' course.

Bunker's Whore

When my wife and I make our annual vacation trip to Acadia, we will go to places we have seen before or patronize restaurants or stores we have previously experienced. We also make a point of seeing or doing something we have not done on previous trips.
On the trip we just finished earlier this month, among the new experiences was a history cruise. We went on a boat out of Northeast Harbor for a narrated cruise.
One of the sights we passed is pictured above. A mile or so off of Mount Desert Island is a feature called Bunker Ledge. It is actually two ledges (often referred to as Bunker Ledge and East Bunker Ledge). One of them has the stone pyramid on it as an aid to navigation, and allegedly it was built when George Washington was President.
For those who aren't fond of referring to Bunker or East Bunker Ledge, the feature is also known as Bunker's Whore. Bunker was a common surname of some of the early settlers on the nearby Cranberry Islands. Reportedly, a Captain Bunker "took the town trollop of Southwest Harbor sailing in his sloop." While out and about, he got distracted and was "not giving his sailing his undivided attention". As a result, his vessel ran aground on the ledge. Thus the alternate name.
It is always interesting to know the history behind the choice of names for towns, mountains, bridges, lakes, etc. I also found a feature called Asshole Rock, which is between Little Cranberry Island and Baker Island, but I guess that will be a story for another time.

A Tough Dog to Keep on the Porch

The title of this piece is a quote by Hilary Clinton, describing her husband. Some may remember him as that  dope-smoking, draft-dodging, woman-chasing hillbilly who served as the 42nd President of the United States. I'm guessing that she is referring to the woman-chasing part of the description. Over the years, he allegedly had numerous affairs which, although he consistently denied them, were readily acknowledged by the female side of the relationships.
While there were numerous affairs that became public, my guess is that there are just as many, if not more, that did not. Clinton consistently denied all of the affairs, demonstrating a personal morality that is hard to describe in positive terms. If Hilary had cut the crotches out of all of his pairs of pants and thrown them out the front door, people would have understood. Instead, she has defended him and stayed in the relationship. Perhaps all of the money they managed to make after he left office, combined with the influence he wields has enabled her to just not think about it.
Being President of the United States is definitely a difficult job, and, for many, challenges that they encounter are not always well-handled. I was having a discussion with a colleague, who was ranting about how much she hated Obama. While she is a bit vague about specifics as to what she doesn't like, she is a fierce Trump supporter, and equally vague as to why. I have made it clear that I am no fan of Trump, but I mostly let his incoherent ramblings speak for themselves. I had once described George W. Bush as "Intellectually Celibate", but I think Trump has him beat. Actually, the more exposure I have to Trump, the more I grudgingly appreciate Dubya.
Getting back to Clinton, he had mixed accomplishments as President. He did very well managing the economy and reducing the deficit, but also got us involved in Somalia and Kosovo. Unfortunately for him, he will probably be best known for Monica Lewinsky and impeachment. If you have to be famous for something, this isn't it. It's also sad, though, to think that, if "serial philanderer" had been an Olympic Event, Clinton would only have been the Silver Medalist of the White House (JFK had the Gold Medal by a wide margin, and was more discrete about it).
Now that Hilary's political career is over, she and her husband can continue to focus on making obscene amounts of money from making speeches and soliciting donations for their foundation, which gives them the power of the money without paying taxes.
I don't know if Hilary is able to keep him on the porch but, if the need arises, she can always dust off the scissors.

That Boy Just Ain't Right

Our current President my be ineffective and incompetent in the role, but no one can say he is not entertaining. It seems like he truly loves attention, but continues to fail to understand that continuing to insult and antagonize the people he needs to help him to be effective and to accomplish anything constructive is not a strategy for success.
Many people have made comments questioning our President's mental health. I am sure some would like to give him a diagnosis to try to explain why he is the way he is. Unfortunately for the mental health professionals, the Goldwater Rule prohibits them from diagnosing someone without an examination. The rule came in the aftermath of the 1964 Presidential election, when mental health professionals labeled Barry Goldwater as mentally ill without ever having met him. Goldwater sued and won, and the Goldwater Rule was born.
While mental health professionals are ethically restricted from saying our President is mentally ill, anyone else is totally free to express that opinion, just as others can insist that he is perfectly sane and conducts himself just as the leader of the free world should. One of my friends, who is a psychologist, was asked what diagnosis he would give our President. Following the Goldwater Rule and observing the highest ethical standards of his professions, his response was, "He's just an asshole."
For those of you who support our President and think he is a fine human being, I respect your right to have such opinions. As for myself, I don't want to get into labels, and think it most polite to just say "That boy just ain't right."

What wine goes with Captain Crunch?

The question was asked by the late George Carlin. When I read this, what came to mind is that there are many things in life that we take way too seriously. Do you really need someone else telling you what wine to have with whatever you are eating? To me, you either like the wine or you don't regardless of what you are eating. George is just pointing out in his unique way how silly some things can become.
If you take a moment to think about it, there are a lot of things or people out there that are taken way too seriously. Among them:
- anyone named Kardashian
- college football bowl games (there are currently over 50 of them, but there are not 100 really good teams)
- Super Bowl pre-game shows (they can't come up with enough worthwhile stuff to last 6 hours)
- beauty pageants
- most of Donald Trump's public statements
- Bill O'Reilly (although hopefully he will continue to fade into obscurity)
- television evangelists (although there aren't as many as there used to be)
- Congress (see my earlier blog entry "Monkeys With Guns")
- "breaking news" with television anchors pontificating for hours despite not having any new information
- team nicknames (I am not offended by the Washington Redskins or any other team name)
- participation awards (people get something for just showing up because we don't want to hurt their feelings? Really?)
- Twitter (I intend to be the last person on the planet to use it)
There are probably dozens of other things or people you or I could add to the list. While we all have our opinions on what is silly and my list probably doesn't match your list and your list probably doesn't match mine, I think we can all agree with George that there are things out there which are taken way more seriously than they should be.
So, what wine goes with Kardashian?

Don't Step in the Leadership

The title of this piece comes from a collection of Dilbert cartoons published in 1999. Having worked in health care for 45 years, I have worked for many people who were in leadership positions. Fortunately, the vast majority were good to work for. On the other hand, some (I can count them on one hand), made you often feel like the gentleman above.
From the good leaders, I learned to understand and apply such things as team building, using critical thinking and analysis, finance, coaching employees, dealing with difficult issues (such as layoffs or workplace violence), and a host of other helpful skills.
From the not-so-great leaders, while they may have had and could at times effectively use many of the above-mentioned skills, the takeaway for me was often based upon the Adult Learning Principle of "How It's Not Done".
Without mentioning any names (although some among you may recognize the individual, who is no longer in a leadership position), here are some examples of things I learned but chose not to adopt:
1) Have a meeting to have a meeting. For me, meetings without purpose are a major turnoff and waste of my time. I prep for meetings that I facilitate; plan an agenda, start on time, guide discussion to stay on track, etc. This leader started off by often being late and often seemed to be making things up at the moment. It was frequently painful.
2) Annual employee evaluations are very important. When I worked in non-union environments, and evaluations were connected to pay raises, employees saw some value to them and had some motivation related to them. In union environments, where pay raises are negotiated and take place regardless of the evaluation, employees are less motivated. I remember one employee (in a union environment) saying to me during the meeting the discuss his evaluation, "Why should I excel? I get paid the same for being mediocre." I prefer to have in place a system in which feedback is provided in the moment. Some places have eliminated annual employee evaluations, and I support that idea as long as the feedback system is in place.
3) Hear, but don't listen. A frequent comment I heard made about this leader is that the individual "just doesn't listen." One example of this occurred when a service was being offered regionally, so employees would have to leave work to drive to the site to receive the service. The leader wanted the service providers to come to the employees work site. I was instructed to contact the person coordinating the service and request that the service be provided at our work site. The person responded to my email, explained why the system was regional, rather than coming to each individual site (making perfect sense) and politely declining the request. This was passed on to the leader, whose response was "Ask her again." Sometimes, the answer is no and you just need to move on and find another way. For this particular leader, the skill was lacking.
4) If no one agrees with you, look around until you find someone who will. This leader had a proposal that no one in the "leadership group" supported. The solution? Hire a consultant who generates a report which (amazingly) says that the leader's idea is a great idea and should be implemented. While some consultants can be useful in some situations, this was clearly a case of the consultant saying what she was paid to say. From my perspective, if everyone around you thinks you are wrong, perhaps you should re-evaluate your position on this issue. Giving up and walking away is sometimes the most prudent thing but, for this leader, it was not a skill the individual chose to exercise often enough.
5) If the news isn't good, manipulate the data or change the vocabulary or eliminate the discussion. This leader had data on an unpleasant topic broken into two categories, and sent data from only one category up the chain to that individual's leadership. Needless to say, things looked better then they actually were. For a major project that was under-resourced and not going well, I was prohibited by the leader from saying anything negative about it in meetings (I am thinking the same thing happened with some of my colleagues). I have this thing about being honest, so I found this philosophy and approach to be a bit distasteful.
6) Just because you can't rationally explain why you want to do something, it doesn't mean it's not a good idea. Common sense would tell you that, if you want people to support an idea, being able to present a rational reason as to why you want to do it is a no-brainer. This leader had an obsession with wanting to reduce the workforce. I have gone through instances in hospitals where the decision was made to reduce the workforce to reduce expenses, but the expectation was never to do so without also making some changes in how services were delivered. This leader obviously did not or could not put together the complete plan, but also could not let go of the change.
While there are multiple other examples I could give, the takeaway is that some people end up in positions of leadership where they are not successful, and people around them have to work in an environment that can often be frustrating and toxic. In this particular case, as Yoda would say, "The Force is weak in this one."
Even though I stepped in it while I was there, I learned.

Flying Somewhere? Maybe Not

A few days ago, a paying passenger who was waiting in his seat for the plane to take off, was forcefully removed from the plane by police. His crime? He had been "selected" by the airline to get bumped so that they could use the seats to transport airline employees. Admittedly, the airline first sought volunteers. Veteran airline travelers know they can get paid well, with sometimes hotel and meals added in, if they give up their seat and take a later flight. Many are willing to accept the offer.

This particular passenger, though, wanted to get where he was going without being delayed (understandable) and refused to give up his seat. The police were called, things escalated to using force, and the passenger was dragged off of the plane, being filmed by fellow passengers.

Unfortunately for you and me, what the airline did (bumping the passenger to give the seat to someone else) is perfectly legal. The law, as well as the "Terms and Conditions" under which they sell you a ticket, allow them to do this. As a result, it is a common practice to sell more tickets than the plane has seats.

Why is this tolerated? Times have changed. Many airlines have gone bankrupt, and the remaining ones run fewer flights. With fewer seats available, the planes are generally full. When you buy a ticket, it is with the understanding that "if you want to fly with us, this is the way it is". The Federal government also appears to be disinclined to prohibit this practice. Have you ever heard of a member of Congress getting bumped? I doubt that would ever happen. Members of Congress get to fly for free anytime they want (the Department of the Treasury pays for their travel, no questions asked). It is more likely that you would get bumped to free up a seat for a member of Congress than one of them get bumped for you.

Call me old fashioned, but I have a problem with this. If I purchase a service, such as an airline ticket, I expect the service to be delivered. Granted, the service is delivered the vast majority of the time, but the fact that you can get screwed over and it's OK is not OK.

In social media regarding this incident, some people are advocating boycotting United Airlines. While this would be easy for me (I have not flown in over 20 years and have no plans to do so), some people (business travelers, for instance) do not have another viable option.

My question to the airlines is: Is there any need for the practice of bumping to continue? If the airline sells a ticket, they are paid up front. If the ticket holder does not show, the seat is empty but also paid for. Does the airline refund the fare to someone who does not show up for the flight? I doubt it. They charge fees if you want to change to a different flight, but they also already have your money.

To me, buying an airline ticket is a gamble. Granted, you are more likely to fly than not, but not all of us are willing to accept getting bumped. To get me to be willing to fly again, it would have to be a REALLY extraordinary circumstance, and I don't see that on the horizon. As long as the current policies and practices continue, I will be boycotting United Airlines and everyone else.