A few days back, I was half-listening to a morning talk show and something caught my attention.  It was one of those times I found myself wishing for a rewind button on the radio.  The talk-jock was reporting that executives from AIG had spent nearly $500,000 on an "executive retreat" after they were bailed out by the Federal government.

From the level of outrage coming through my car speakers, I gathered that the boondoggle was for the top few members of the executive team as some sort of last hurrah.

It turns out that isn't quite what happened.  There was an AIG conference held at the St. Regis Resort at tony Monarch Beach.  But it was held by the executives to "reward and incent" the top 100 independent sales reps for their performance.

It's been a common practice in the financial services industry to honor top sales performance with a lavish vacation, often including gifts, golf, and cash awards.  Spouses of top peformers are frequently invited as a way to honor their support of the hardworking sales rep.  And one of the perks of being an executive is attendance at such events to press the flesh and say thank you.

Then today, Wachovia Bank was revealed to be in process of staging a similar event for the top 75 brokers from a subsidiary.  The event?  An all-expenses included cruise of the Greek Isles, including spouses or significant others.  And a few executives to represent the holding company.

On the one hand, my experience tells me that at least the AIG event is not out of line, either in overall cost per person ($5,000) or intent (honoring excellence in sales) with what's been commonly done in the past.  I can imagine that arguments were made that these events are for past performance, that they'd been promised, that sales people needed to be rewarded for excellent performance despite the overall troubles of the company.  That it wasn't their fault and so they shouldn't be "punished" by having the event cancelled.

But on the other hand, isn't it (at best) unseemly to spend lavishly on any function when the government has just put up $85 billion to bail out your company?  Doesn't it make top management seem out of touch to send a few of your employees on a cruise when the rank and file are worried about keeping their jobs?

Company spokesmen defended the events as "an industry practice" and "an annual affair."

Such statements smack of being tone deaf.  Of not getting the level of anger and angst felt by average Americans--many of whom couldn't afford a $500 vacation this year, let alone a $5,000 blowout or a luxury cruise.

Where is the common sense in these two companies?  Why didn't someone put up his or her hand and say, "Excuse me, but is this the image we want to project right now?  I know we can justify this expense as 'business as usual' but business isn't usual right now."

I can only hope the negative publicity resulting from these two events will persuade other companies that it's more than the folks on Main Street who need to be tightening their belts right now.

It's bad enough to be a presidential candidate during primary season.  It's really bad when you spent a bundle to come in third in the Iowa caucuses and when, on the eve of New Hampshire, the polls show you 10 points behind.

But it's got to downright be ridiculous to be on a campaign stop and have two complete idiots stand up and shout "Iron my shirt" to a female candidate for President.  What were these guys thinking?  Were they serious?  Was it a (bad) joke?  Either way, they get my vote for idiots of the day.

Unfortunately, they'll have to share that honor with the folks at the AFP.  Why you ask?

Because they're making a torrent out of a cracking voice and glistening eyes.  Because they're suggesting that Hillary's response to the campaign trail question, "How are you doing?" revealed her to be on the verge of cracking up.  Think I'm exaggerating?  Here's an exact quote:

"An exhausted Hillary Clinton fought back tears and her voice broke with emotion Monday, as the strain of her damaged White House bid welled up and cracked her steely public face."  The headline to that particular lede was "Tears of a Candidate: Clinton's Emotions Flow."

Now look at the video here.

Now join me in asking the AFP to iron my shirt.

By the way, the AP story (Associated Press.  AFP is a the Canadian version of the Associate Press it appears) was only marginally better in its reporting.  Both articles greatly exaggerated Clinton's very warm, very human moment--spinning it into an emotional meltdown.  If people just read the articles, they'll assume she's just "another emotional female." 

It's not like I'm an ardent Hillary supporter...I'm on record as favoring (the fading) John Edwards.  But c'mon!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the 21st Century?

I just couldn't face the blogosphere yesterday--not after the Padres went down to the Rockies, 9-8, in the wild card playoff.  It was too depressing, too distressing and just plain wrong.

In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess to being a fair-weather, late-season fan.  Don't get me wrong.  I'm faithful to the Padres and the Chargers.  15 years of living in LA County could not erase a deep dislike of the Dodgers...I went to two games in 15 years and both times rooted for team the Dodgers were playing against.  Some rivalries are bred into the bone.

The only LA team I did support was the Lakers and that's because I didn't even like basketball until after moving to LA.  And, of course, they were easy to love when they were winning championships.  It helps to actually be at the playoffs...ah, those were the days.  It's messier now, harder to love the Lakers.  But hey, I was trained to be a sports fan in San Diego.  Hope springs eternal (and nearly always dies on the vine).

Having disclosed that I'm an end-of-season fan, it's fair for folks to take my opinion on the game with a huge grain of salt (and a margarita for those so inclined).  Still, I do have an opinon on the season ender--it was all down to 3 calls.

The first call, and I'm not just saying this because I'm a Padres (e-o-s) fan, was a good one.  In the seventh inning, Rockies Garret Aktins boomed a ball to left field.  Rockies fans said it was a homer.  The umpires ruled it a double.  And slow motion shots of the ball show its trajectory--it hit the yellow boundary and bounced into the field.  Good call.

After the Padres scored their go-ahead two runs at the top of the 13th inning, Dan turned to me and said, "Why did they pull Thatcher?"  The answer?  A blown call by Coach Bud Black who made the decision to go with Trevor Hoffman as the Padres "closer" despite Hoffman's failure to save a critical game just days before.  Part of being a coach is being "in the moment."  That means understanding that the knee jerk reaction (Trever Hoffman equals sure thing) isn't necessarily the right one.  Thatcher was throwing incredible stuff.  Clearly, as evidenced by the way the Rockies lit him up, Hoffman was not.

Then the final blown call of the night--Home Plate Umpire Tim McClelland's delayed decision that Matt Holliday safe.  Replays clearly show that Holliday didn't touch the plate...Catcher Michael Barrett blocked his access and should have been allowed to tag him out.  But instead, McClelland put his hands out wide, indicating Holliday safe and the ball trickled from Barrett's hand like a whisper of what might have been.

Do I think the Padres would have won if McClelland had called things differently at home?  Probably not.  The Rockies had Hoffman's number and Black seemed married to his decision at that point.  The bottom line is the Padres left too many men on base (29 by one blogger's count) and the Rockies were better with the bat.

It's just too bad that the season ended (for us) on a controversial call.  But hey...I'm a San Diego fan.  There's always next year, right? 

There's an excellent article in today's Los Angeles Times about the escalating tension between Arnold Schwarzenegger and the powerful California Correctional Peace Officers Association.  The story starts off powerfully, detailing how guards filed a nuisance grievance against the State over a 5' sunflower plant that was supposedly obstructing their view from the gun tower.

I'm surprised they didn't shut down visiting at the Lancaster facility while they paid some guard triple overtime to go home, get his clippers, put on protective gear, clip the sunflower, put it into hazmat disposal facilities and change back into uniform.  (If I sound cynical about this particular union, it's because I am.)

I wrote a letter to one of the State's prison wardens last week.  I won't specify which one because we want to keep our friend anonymous and safe.  The reason for the letter?  The State recently reinstated Friday visiting, a privilege they'd revoked (along with Thursday visiting) several years back when we were having the Davis budget crisis.  Dan and I went to visiting twice after the reinstatement.  Once on a Friday, which was wonderful because it wasn't crowded, lines were reasonable, guards were in a much better mood than usual.

The second visit was on a Saturday.  Again, it was much better than usual, presumably because Friday visits were taking some of the enormous pressure of weekend visits off of Saturday/Sunday.

As I wrote to the warden, "As you can imagine, it takes an extraordinary amount of dedication to regularly visit an inmate at any California prison facility.  The travel is difficult, the processing is time consuming and, despite the best efforts of visitor and guard, always tense."  What I didn't add, because I didn't want to be antagonistic, is that visiting is always demeaning for the visitor. 

You'll note that I did reference "the best efforts of guard."  As a visitor, I appreciate that the guards are in a difficult position.  They have to suspect the worst of every visitor and, at the same time, manage a pleasant demeanor and treat visitors with respect.  Many don't manage that tightrope, but all of the guards who staff visiting at "our" prison do at least make the attempt.  Not so at every California prison.  (We've visited at 3 now.)

In general, I don't object to individual guards (although our friend has some stories that would raise anyone's hackles).  What I do object to is the unfettered power of the prison guard's union and some of the ridiculous concessions they've won from our government in contract negotiations.

The article lists several examples.  My personal favorite is that sick time counts toward overtime. (!)  Their rumored pay level of over $100 K for the average guard (including overtime, sick time, etc) is also beyond comprehension.

I've long said to Dan that the government needs to get out from under the prison guard union.  Now that they've official withdrawn from negotiations, maybe we'll have the chance.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not against unions in general (too many family members in unions for one thing...and for another, there are many times that management over-reaches).  What I am against is a powerful union, running amok with political contributions, overpaid workers on the State payroll, and contributing to the inefficiency, cruelty and inhumanity of California's prison system.

I'll be interested to see if Arnie is strong enough to bring the union into line before he leaves office.  If he does, I'll have to retract my anti-Arnie sentiments (at least in part).

There was an interesting article in today's LA Times about the scheduled destruction of a "petitioner's village" in Beijing.  There is an ancient tradition in China where those who feel they have a grievance against the government petition to be heard.

In earlier times, the petitioner would bang a drum (literally) outside the government offices.  Apparently if the official grew tired enough of the banging drum, he would hear the petitioner's grievance.

In recent years, the Chinese government located several "Petition Offices," the modern offshoot of banging the drum, to a neighborhood in Beijing.  Petitioners moved nearby and the village sprang up.

It's not a good sign for China's supposedly open government that theya re disbanding the village.  Timing is suspect since the Olympics are fast approaching.  As the article notes, it's likely that because so many petitioners gathered in one place, the government has grown nervous about their ability to band together and form a movement.

The petitioner's village reminded me of our American versions of the petitioner's village--the "free speech zone."  At rallies, speeches, even near Bush's "ranch," zones are set aside for people to freely give their views.  Unfortunately, the zones are often far from the venue of the speech or rally, so the people are mainly free to give their views to those who agree with them.

Things get trickier in cases where a protestor or dissenter actually gets access to a microphone during a question and answer session.  During the last election campaign, Bush was notorious for only letting in friendly (read Registered Republican Donor) folk for his "town hall" discussions.

At a speech given by John Kerry yesterday in Florida, a young man named Andrew Meyer took the mike to ask Kerry a question.  There is some dispute over whether or not he took the mike away from another person (but I've seen no evidence of that).  He proceeded to ask Kerry about the 2004 election, referencing a book, about impeaching Bush and whether or not Kerry was part of the Skull and Bones society that Bush belongs to.

During Meyer's long, rambling question, Kerry is clearly engaged with his topics.  Yet 20 seconds into the question, a security guard touches Meyer on the back in an apparent attempt to get him to quit the mike.

Meyer refuses and continues with his half-lecture, half-question.  40 seconds later, she's back again.  Meyer brushes her off and finally finishes his question at 1 minute, 19 seconds.  He is then accosted by another security guard and they both try to take him out of the auditorium. 

Kerry interjects, saying, "No, let me answer his question."  But the guards ignore Kerry and the situation rapidly deteriorates.  Meyer objects to being escorted out, avoids the guards, flaps his arms and generally makes a ruckus.

The guards succeed in getting Meyer to the door of the auditorium just about 2 minutes after he started asking his question. He's put on the ground, continues to protest and then is tasered.

When I first saw the video of this event, I felt that both "sides" were off base--Meyer for his resistance and the guards for tasering him.  Having looked a 3rd time now, I really feel pretty sympathetic toward Meyer.  The female guard rapidly decided that his questions were inappropriate and tried to get him to away from the mike when very little time had elapsed.  He was harassed during questioning even though Kerry was clearly engaged.

And the guards ignored a gracious opportunity provided by Kerry to de-escalate the situation.

Should Meyer have resisted? Not if he wanted to avoid a confrontation.

Did the guards go too far in tasering him? At that point, they probably wouldn't have been able to subdue him without force and the situation needed to be resolved quickly.  So they probably made a "correct" decision there.

The real issue (easy for me to say since I wasn't tasered) is that the situation should never have gotten to that point.  Meyer was exercising his right to free speech and there was no credible reason for taking that away from him.

Eventually the officers tell Meyer that they're arresting him for trying to "incite a riot."  Hah!  That won't stick.  The disturbance was created by the show of force, in my opinion, not by the questions.

The good news out of this brouhaha is that we're in a country where news of the altercation is not suppressed.  Where Meyer will be able to defend himself and petition for justice without having to bang a drum or beg for an official to hear him.

The bad news is that such over-reaction by the guards might encourage more people to stay safely in the "free speech zone" where they are seen but not heard.

Good Lord, it's September?  How can it be September already?  Wasn't it just May a few weeks ago?

And here I am.  The novel not written.  Still carrying the extra poundage I put on over the holidays.  Still waiting for my gray hair to grow out.  And still waiting, of course, for the Great Landscape Project of 2007 to be (finally, please God?) over.

I got my first catalog with Christmas decorations in it the other day.  There must be a special place in hell for folks who rush the seasons in an already rushed world.  I can't even get excited about Halloween yet and then isn't there a Thanksgiving in between Halloween and Christmas?

I was chatting with Dan's brother-in-law, Kevin, the other day about Disney and how blatant they are at marketing various levels of exclusivity and product tie-ins at every turn.  It seems to me that the whole country is going that way.  You can't turn the corner without spotting a celebrity ad.  Jen drinks this water.  Eva uses this lotion.  Heather does her own hair with this product.  Rise above your everyday existence, join the exclusive ranks of the beautiful people.

And the news...we know we're in trouble with the tv news.  All the same stories, all the time, on every channel.  Which wouldn't be so bad, I suppose, if it were actually news that they report.  But it's scandal of the moment stuff, over-dramatized weather (STORM WATCH!), anything other than in-depth reports about what's going on in the world.  The only difference between the networks in newscasts are which prime time shows they plug with faux news items...can't plug the competitors, of course, so it's always their own show.  
 
Maybe the key is to put down the magazines, turn off the remote control, toss the catalogs before opening them.  Then I won't know there are twinkly trees in the back sections.  I won't see which celebrity uses Neutrogena.  And I won't have to hear endlessly about the crisis du jour.

Maybe then I can lose the weight, write the novel, get that hair cut.  But the backyard?  That's out of my hands.  It was supposed to be done a month ago.  My how time flies.