Looking ahead from the banks of the St. Johns River

I made this picture on a recent visit to Jacksonville, Fla. It was early in the morning. The humidity was already thick. The St. Johns River was still. From the Southbank side, I could easily see the Main Street Bridge and the downtown. I could tell that traffic was surprisingly light for the morning commute. Of course, living as I do, in the suburbs of Washington D.C., the traffic would appear relatively light almost anywhere else in the country.

Jacksonville is a cool little Southern city with appealing tree-lined neighborhoods, good eats and friendly people. Yes, there is a gritty side to the city, too. But even that tends to enhance the authenticity of the town. This is not Orlando or Miami.

The river winds through the city with a kind of elegance that you don't see in most other metro areas. On occasion, dolphins can be spotted swimming up and down the river, searching for dinner. Cars meander into town along streets with robust palm trees and Spanish moss. Office workers walk slowly from intersection to intersection dressed in polo shirts and khakis. The pace is calm but not stunted. It's a casual city with a slight inferiority complex but also a good sense of itself. Having a professional football team in town has certainly helped put Jacksonville on the map.

The sailor in this photo probably has other things on his mind that don't involve traffic or football. He has the look of a single purpose. The look of a man about to take a journey from Jacksonville with all of his worldly possessions in a single bag. I wondered what it would be like to be so focused on one thing -- to remove all the white noise that surrounds our daily thoughts.

People in Jacksonville seem to like where they live, which would make it more difficult to leave, of course. But I get the impression that this sailor, despite the uncertainly of what lies ahead, will be back.

HBO show about post-Katrina is timely and profound

The HBO series, Treme, wrapped up its debut season last week. The series is about post-Katrina New Orleans, particularly the Treme section of the city, and has been renewed for a second season. That's good news for people who appreciate quality television dramas with something smart and meaningful to say about life, death and everything in between.

The series had a lot of texture. Producers cast known and not-so-known musicians for various roles. Treme is almost as much about music as it is the struggles of New Orleans. But make no mistake about it, Treme gets up close and personal in developing all characters and story lines. It goes well beyond the music. While some folks triumph over the odds, others face a more tragic end. The character played by John Goodman, a writer who couldn't cope with losing the essence of his beloved city, was particularly profound.

In the middle are all the people with uncertain futures. They tend to deal with their lives one day at a time. Some leave the city, some stay. A few regain some sense of normalcy, while others don't. The fictionalized stories are both moving and educational. There are aspects of post-Katrina life in New Orleans that I had never thought about until watching Treme. And I'm a guy who read a lot of news accounts of the real-life events before, during and after the hurricane while I was working at USA Today.

It wouldn't surprise me if in five or 10 years, HBO does a post-BP oil spill series. There are certain stories that can't quite be told through the national news media. Journalists are good at getting the daily news and sometimes digging deeper and presenting well-formed analysis or human interest pieces. But events on the scale of Katrina, and now the BP oil spill, are rich with numerous angles and ripe story-telling perspectives -- positives, negatives and everything in between. Sometimes "creative non-fiction" is the best vehicle to convey certain hardships and challenges.

Treme was the right show at the right time. With the oil still flowing, and more lives being destroyed so soon after Katrina, one can't help but wonder how people along the Gulf Coast can endure this latest onslaught. While one disaster was man-made and the other was caused by a force of nature, in the end, it doesn't really matter why or how the catastrophes arrived if you're a resident of that part of the world.

A better pursuit than raising the retirement age

Retirement age should be a personal decision based on one's finances and health, among other things, of course. Yet, governments around the world have a lot to do with that decision. As the economic crisis continues, many countries are considering raising the age for retirement with full benefits.

That would be tragic and wouldn't necessarily accomplish its goal.

Those who have saved enough money for retirement don't need to worry too much about the U.S. or any other country raising the retirement age. But for the majority of us who haven't saved enough or were wiped out by the current recession, retirement is beginning to seem like an impossibility. That is not good for the human spirit that longs for some down time. Raising the age would only make matters worse for older individuals already struggling to stay on the job.

People retiring is one of the ways jobs become available to folks who are looking for work. Fewer retirements means more people in need of unemployment benefits and other assistance. That in turn increases nations' deficits. So I don't see the logic in forcing senior citizens to remain in the workforce. I understand that paying into Social Security is better for the government than people collecting their benefits, but countries shouldn't fatten up their federal budgets on the labor of senior citizens. What next? Reduce the legal age of when minors can work so that they can pay taxes?

The irony is that while some people are willing and capable of working into their golden years, age discrimination laws aren't enforced enough to prevent some companies from forcing older workers out the door. So while governments may raise the retirement age to cope with economic concerns, they should also take a long look at how older employees are treated in the workforce and job market. Tightening up age-discrimination laws will do far more to keep able seniors working than raising the retirement age.

Former colleagues facing possible layoffs, other changes

There is news brewing at my old stomping grounds. It isn't encouraging.

Changes are coming to USA Today. With those content and/or operational changes will be probable layoffs, perhaps as early as this summer. This would be the third round of involuntarily layoffs. The national newspaper also had a round of "voluntary" buyouts. The newsroom has been hit particularly hard, with a lot of the people who built the newspaper now long gone.

John K. Hartman, a professor of journalism at Central Michigan University and author of two books about USA Today believes he has some ideas (not ones I necessarily agree with) to help fix USA Today. In an opinion piece in a journalism publication, Hartman also brings up the possibility of the flagship paper offering transfers of laid off employees to other newspapers within the Gannett chain. This would surprise me. Not because it isn't a logical idea, but because transfers weren't an option in any of the previous rounds of buyouts and layoffs. If they were, a lot of highly qualified ex-USAT'ers might be working in Melbourne, Fla., Westchester, N.Y. or Phoenix, Ariz., right now.

I feel for my former colleagues who are under another potential threat, particularly the seasoned journalists who might have an especially hard time finding work if they are let go. While many newspapers are beginning to slowly rebound, others are still struggling.

Read the Hartman article.

Rachel Maddow defends the unemployed

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

This is a portion of one of the more logical commentaries about why the killing of the stimulus/unemployment benefits bill by Senate Republicans is a politically motivated, tragic mistake for the entire country. Rachel Maddow makes a lot of sense in connecting the dots. She details how the bill would have continued to help a still struggling economy, until jobs returned and people could get back on their feet. Later in the segment (not seen in this video) she documents several Republicans stereotyping unemployed Americans. And she shoots down the deficit excuse being used by Republicans for turning their backs on the jobless.

This video is only half of the entire segment Maddow led with on Thursday night. Twenty minutes is far more than any other newscast did on the ramifications of the killing of the bill. It also reminded viewers of Sen. Jim Bunning's lack of priorities during a February 2010 speech.

Speaking in defense of people who have fallen through the cracks during this recession is a good use of valuable broadcast airtime -- much more helpful than rehashing the death of Michael Jackson. It reminds us of the struggles many of our friends, neighbors and family members have had during the last couple of years. Maddow shows compassion but also explains why trashing unemployed people is bad for the country and the economy as a whole.

Maddow is left of center, but she backs her views with facts, unlike some other talking heads. For the most part, she is preaching to the choir because most on the right wouldn't bother to watch her nightly show on MSNBC. However, I believe it's smart to listen to all opinions, even ones you may not agree with, which is why I listen to people like Rush Limbaugh at times. She's been dead-on with her appraisal of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and appears to have excellent news judgment in prioritizing the stories she does on her one-hour show. She does mix in some humor, but for the most part Maddow avoids the circus antics used by other prime-time commentators.

A victim of the spill you may not hear much about

This is 55-year-old Allen Kruse. He was a fisherman from Alabama who recently transitioned into a job cleaning up oil for BP. A regular guy with a good work ethic.

Kruse shot and killed himself on Wednesday.

No one knows why he did this. There was no suicide note. But his friends say the father of four was stressed by the oil disaster ruining his business and the life that he loved.

There are all types of victims as a result of the man-made disaster in the Gulf of Mexico. The people on the front lines, with the most to lose, are feeling the greatest pressure. Some are getting sick from exposure to the oil. Others are breaking down mentally and emotionally.

Obviously, only a small percentage of people will commit suicide. That doesn't mean the disaster won't lead to other serious personal and societal problems. As the recession has shown us in the last two years, unemployment is a major trigger for all kinds of personal and societal problems. The oil spill on top of the recession has already put thousands of Gulf residents out of work.

But the oil spill is causing something more than just a loss of income. It's a dark cloud hanging over the entire country -- a nation that has been under the darkest of clouds with wars and economic collapses.

It appears Mr. Kruse felt there was no hope -- not in his potential lifetime. He could no longer see the blue water. Not now, not in his future.

The handling of this spill to this point sure doesn't inspire much confidence that it will stop anytime soon. It gets progressively worse by the day, as the arguing and political battles rage on. Meanwhile, as always, the regular folks are paying the most profound price.

Read more about Mr. Kruse.

Verizon takes aim at White House

The Washington Post has a story today headlined: "Business leaders say Obama's economic policies stifle growth."

Ivan G. Seidenberg, the head of Verizon Communications, said that potential tax increases and new regulations will hurt economic growth and "harm our ability . . . to grow private-sector jobs in the U.S."

The Verizon CEO is chairman of the Business Roundtable, which met in Washington on Tuesday. Seidenberg said that Democrats are creating an "increasingly hostile environment for investment and job creation." According to the Post, Seidenberg and the Business Roundtable have been an allies of Obama's in the past.

So why the reversal?

It appears it's almost impossible to strike a healthy balance between prudent regulation of businesses and allowing companies the freedoms and perks they say they need to expand. Without expansion, job creation will be slow. But without regulations, economic catastrophes are bound to happen.

It is understandable why Obama is pushing hard in one direction and big business is pushing back. Deregulation has had a lot to do with the economic mess were in. Obama wants to close some loopholes and make sure corporations pay their fair share of taxes. Seems to make sense to me, but then again, I am not a CEO.

Perhaps businesses need to start looking for greater efficiencies so that they don't require handouts and overly friendly policies from the government in order to turn a profit. Almost anyone who has ever worked for a large company knows there is waste. Eliminating the waste is one way to improve bottom lines.

More out-of-the-box thinking is what is needed in business today. Of course, the government should not be working against fair-minded businesses, but some commonsense regulations are needed in order to create a level and competitive playing field. Regulations keep the public safe. They provide boundaries that curtail certain workplace abuses. To think that removing regulations will solve all our problems is shortsighted at best. It would be like removing the referees from football. Sure, the game might be more exciting in some ways without penalties and instant-replay reviews, but the long-term effects would not be positive.

Obama faces more criticism as jobs remain scarce

"Their first one-on-one meeting took place in the Oval Office four months later, after McChrystal got the Afghanistan job, and it didn't go much better. 'It was a 10-minute photo-op,' says an adviser to McChrystal. 'Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was. Here's the guy who's going to run his f-ing war, but he didn't seem very engaged. The Boss was pretty disappointed.'"

- Excerpt from a Rolling Stone magazine profile on Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan

President Obama is under fire again. Conservatives are using an article set to appear in Rolling Stone as evidence of Obama's incompetence. Coming amidst weeks of criticism over his dealing with the Gulf of Mexico oil crisis, the timing of this article couldn't be worse.

However, it's a recent New York Times/CBS News poll that reveals one of Obama's biggest problems. Most people (54 percent) don't believe that Obama has a clear plan for creating jobs. That lack of confidence in such a personal and crucial area of people's lives is bad news for the young president.

As I have said many times in this blog, jobs are the key to everything from economic recovery to support for incumbents. Jobs are what get people out of bed in the morning and contribute to the tax base. Jobs are what pay for new schools. police and roads. Working people support big and small vendors, which in turn fuels the overall economy. Without good jobs, accessible to anyone who is qualified and willing to work, Obama is going to continue to slide in popularity polls.

Why is that important? Because Obama has some good ideas that are going to die on the drawing board as long as his political clout continues to decline. Given time to grow into the job, Obama might actually do some good for this country and for the planet. But time is about to run out and Obama has to take some of the blame for that.

Job security allows people to take vacations, buy things and enjoy the fruits of their labor. Obama has underestimated how bad the job market really is and is now paying a price. Because of his unwillingness to immerse himself fully in the quest to improve the economy, people are questioning whether he's up to other tasks of the presidency. Military leaders are apparently having similar doubts about Obama as are job seekers and environmentalists. We don't hear more negative comments about Obama from animal-rights activists because, frankly, the alternative (Republicans) is so much worse. But make no mistake about it, Obama is beginning to appear to a wide variety of Americans as a president who is out of touch. A smart guy without a plan.

The McChrystal flap will be used against Obama by the usual suspects, the right wingers. Unemployed folks of all political persuasions are not seeing any signs of things getting better under this Democratic president or his leadership party. And while Obama did get BP to set aside $20 billion for oil-spill victims, he has not been able to stop the leak. He personally claims to have organized the best and brightest scientists to address the problem, but where is the evidence that those people have done anything to cap the well? Who are these government experts Obama has talked to? It appears to most people that BP is running the whole show.

Yes, there is a pictured being painted that Obama is in over his head and/or doesn't have the right people working for him. The campaign charges against him, about never having been a manager of anything, seem to be more valid as time goes on and each crack in his armor gets a little bigger. Good managers don't let those cracks get too large. They fix them. But if you've never managed anything, well, you might not have an intuitive sense of how to deal with a crisis. This is why experience matters in all walks of life.

I was rooting for Obama and still am because his failure won't do me or the country any good. But I am having serious doubts about the man's management abilities. I thought he'd stay off the golf course and be a nose-to-the-grindstone president with vast intellectual skills to solve or at least understand key issues. Even McChrystal said he voted for Obama, only to be disappointed later on. Obama's management abilities don't seem to be up to par with his values or analytical abilities, rendering him as essentially ineffective. Management abilities and hands-on political skills (like giving speeches) are two different things. The world needs good managers because hands-on skillful people don't always know how to keep the trains running on time.

Most of this wave of negativity could be turned around if Obama would do what he said he was going to do. Focus on job creation. Real jobs. Not temporary Census Bureau jobs. Not low-level jobs that result in the underemployment of professional and educated people. If people are employed in relatively satisfying jobs, a lot of this negativism would disappear. Americans tend to vote with their wallets. They also assess a president on a variety of topics based in large part on their bank accounts. If Obama wants to sell clean energy, he needs to get people back to work. No one is going to focus on solar panels if they are in foreclosure. People worried about their jobs aren't going to learn about or support Obama's loftier ideas. Regular folks just want to eat and pay their bills. If they can do that relatively securely, then maybe they'll pay attention to broader issues. But until that job security returns, Obama is going to continue to get stuck in the mud.

The Obama honeymoon is over. The opportunities for advancements in clean-energy initiatives and fine-tuning of health-care reform have to be tabled for now. Generals are blasting Obama and so are some liberals. It's no longer just a right-wing radio show assault. And my gut feeling is that it's all made worse by the administration short-shrifting job creation and the economy. Fix the economy and everything else would fall into place. Many of those folks who aren't working because of the current moratorium on deep-water oil rigs might be able to find employment elsewhere if the economy would return to some sort of normal state. But with most industries struggling, there are few opportunities for anyone to transition into other fields. The ultimate answer isn't to keep risky rigs running in the Gulf of Mexico so that people can have jobs. The solution is to create a country and an economy where workers have options, where if one industry collapses for whatever reason, unemployed people wouldn't be left to rot.

It's hard to come to the defense of a president when you've been out of work for the entire time he's been in office. It's difficult to believe this is a president who wants to protect the environment when just a few months ago he was talking about drilling for oil off the coast of Virginia. He is a president who parades around golf courses while wildlife is caked in oil. Perceptions mean a lot, and if one is going to blast BP's Tony Hayward, the CEO of the oil giant, for participating in a yachting competition last weekend while the oil continues to flow, then raising an eyebrow over Obama's golf outings seems like fair play.

Simply put, Obama needs to clean up his act. That doesn't mean silencing generals. It means he has to stop giving people legitimate reasons to question his actions and lack of actions.

I can't fully support a president who has taken his eye off the ball -- the ball being jobs, and now an oil disaster. Until Obama's actions match his campaign promises -- until he rolls up his sleeves and gives up a vacation or two -- I don't really see much of a difference in Obama as compared with George W. Bush. We're still at war. Unemployment and underemployment aren't getting significantly better. The rich are still getting richer, often at the expense of the poor and middle class. Can one man solve these issues alone? No. But he can set the proper tone. He did it with health care, why isn't he doing it with other issues?

Unfortunately, the alternatives to Obama are in many ways worse. The Republicans not only wouldn't stop the oil, they would probably offer BP tax incentives to clean up the spill and make you and I pay for the bulk of the mess. They wouldn't produce jobs, but instead would create more millionaires at the top of large corporations. They'd cut off unemployment benefits and potentially get us into another war with either Iran or North Korea. Sorry, Tea Party people. But those are pretty much facts. I leaned Republican at one time in my life, but no more.

We have a leadership problem more than a political problem in this country. It can be seen in the White House and in the private sector. It's been getting worse for years. Lowering the unemployment rate will at least create the illusion of things getting better so that other issues can be addressed, but I fear the basic principles of leadership are lost.

We tend to rally around illusions and marketing campaigns more than truth and values. A candidate, like Obama was in 2008, becomes a product, not a man. Then when the product fails to work as advertised, we get upset with it. What we should be doing is getting angry with ourselves for not demanding more of everyone and anyone in leadership positions, from teachers to presidents and generals. From the owners of a small businesses on up to the CEO of oil companies, we need better, brighter and more principled people running the show. Mediocrity can't continue to rise to the top of businesses and government. What qualities and criteria a person must posses in order to be promoted must change. That's on voters, boards of directors and others with the power to elect or appoint leaders.

By all accounts, Gen. McChrystal is far better than mediocre, and not some political hack. That is why his criticism of Obama is getting so much attention today. The people in charge of damage control in the White House are probably going nuts this afternoon, trying to spin this situation into something more less negative for the evening news and morning papers.

A pattern is emerging with Obama. It appears he isn't as engaged as his eloquent speeches would have people believe. I think his intentions are good, but I also am beginning to wonder if he has the capability to relate to average Americans or a thick enough skin to be a great leader. How strong is his commitment to lead? Obama might be a skilled intellectual and have some smart political handlers, but is he a general? From what McChrystal, certain polls and some folks in the Gulf states are saying, the answer is no.

More bad news for the president. Obama's deep-water oil-drilling moratorium is overturned by a judge. Read more.

Goodbye to modern society and conveniences; hello earthship

A friend of mine is moving into an earthship.

I didn't know what an earthship was until a week ago. It's the ultimate in off-the-grid living. Most are found in New Mexico and Arizona, where each earthship home is usually situated on much more land than a typical cookie-cutter house in a sterile subdivision. Not having to deal with neighbors is apparently a big selling point of earthships. You don't get much house, but you sure get a big hunk of property for a reasonable price.

They are built from old tires, dirt and beer bottles, among other things. Earthship inhabitants don't deal with electric or water companies. There's no television cable or natural gas lines.

My friend, a musician whom I've played music with for about four years, was born in Brooklyn, N.Y., and works remotely from his townhome in Northern Virginia. He is employed by a very large company located in Manhattan. He's about 60 years old and never struck me as the anti-social type. In fact, he is generally pretty good with people.

So why the dramatic move?

I really don't know the details of why he's fleeing to an earthship near Flagstaff, Ariz., in a couple of weeks. I could take some guesses, but they probably would be wrong or would be only part of the equation that is sending him west at this stage of life. He's the second person I've known in recent years to move from the tense metro Washington area to the rural desert of Arizona and the first to buy an earthship. There is rural and then there is earthship rural. When you go earthship, you are making a bolder but perhaps more private statement.

The move to an earthship makes perfect sense and, at the same time, defies all logic. No one likes utility bills. Who enjoys living within arm's length of a neighbor or two (or 20) who you can hear, smell and see every waking hour, as if they are living with you rather than next door or across the street?

On the other hand, I've grown accustomed to electricity, air conditioning and plenty of hot water. Life is enough work without having to process my waste and filter rain water off my roof to drink on a daily basis. I like having a grocery store within walking distance, too.

It's too bad that some people, and their increasingly annoying habits, have to go along with rest of us partaking in modern-day conveniences in suburbia. It's a sin that middle-class subdivisions are planned in ways where no one has any elbow room or sense of privacy. It's also a sin that people seem to not know how to live together anymore. People seem to think that buying or renting a condo or townhouse entitles them to do whatever they choose. If that means mowing the grass at 2 a.m. or cranking up their surround sound 24/7, then that's what they do, with simply no regard for their neighbors.

But I think there is something more to this earthship lifestyle than just getting away from the neighbors from hell, rising utility bills and beltway traffic jams. When I see what society creates with over-consumption, the earthship concept doesn't seem so insane. In fact, it seems pretty responsible and selfless. How many people would be willing to give up their dishwashers in order to reduce their carbon footprint?

A lot of folks have tried to live off the grid and failed. It gets too difficult. And some people say that while the aggravation of modern-life isn't good for one's health, being totally isolated can be just as bad. We benefit from being exposed to nature and scenic views, but apparently we also need human interactions to some degree. Healthy ones. Not the ones where we're giving the finger to each other along I-95 in Baltimore.

My friend and his wife are on an adventure. It's coming later in life. As he says, "If not now then when?" He has a secure job that allows him to work from home. He will have to get his Internet connection via a satellite dish, I suppose, but overall the risk of earthship living isn't as severe as it might appear at first glance. If he was quitting his job and just going to live off the land, well, then I would be more concerned.

Jobs and the cash flow they provide are the last ties to modern society that even an earthship inhabitant probably can't do without.

Rep. Joe Barton shows he's a real-life Pat Geary

There is a character in the movie The Godfather, Part II. His name is Pat Geary. He's a fictional U.S. senator from Nevada. And he is in the hip pocket of the Corleone crime family.

During a congressional hearing investigating the head of the mafia, the corrupt politician apologizes to Michael Corleone (the godfather) and defends the Corleone family and all Italian immigrants. The other politicians, not knowing of his association with Corleone, look at Sen. Geary with a degree of bewilderment. Michael Corleone, played by Al Pacino, sits across from the panel with a subtle but satisfied look on his face.

Geary did his part. He spoke on behalf of a known liar and criminal.

Today, real life in Washington imitated fiction as Rep. Joe Barton, a Republican from Texas, spoke up in defense of BP. He apologized to company CEO, Tony Hayward, for what he called a "shakedown" that the oil officials received in the White House on Wednesday. It was truly a stunning moment in American politics. It was as if Barton was Geary and Hayward was Corleone.

Later in the afternoon, Barton had to issue an apology for the apology. It was clear that someone in the Republican Party had gotten to him during a recess. But what is also clear is that this is how many Republicans feel. They want no government interference. They want big companies to do as they please, without penalties. Barton's only mistake was in speaking his mind.

You can bet there are plenty of right-wingers who dislike President Obama -- who orchestrated the request for the $20 billion BP cleanup fund -- so much that they would defend Lucifer before inflicting pain on a large corporation. It's just the way modern-day Republicans roll, particularly Tea Party types who are in the ironic position of having to defend something British (BP).

If Sen. Jim Bunning's (R) recent attack on folks desperately seeking jobs isn't revealing enough, Barton's antics today should paint a clear picture of what festers in the dark hearts of many right-wing extremists. The Tea Party isn't what it appears to be. These aren't patriots anymore than Sean Hannity is about country first. These Rush Limbaugh followers believe in a survival of the fittest approach to building a society. If brown pelicans can't survive a little oil, tough. If a fisherman loses his job because of a toxic spill, too bad.

I might add that Democrats aren't a whole lot better, but at least they seem to be able to tell the difference between victims and criminals.

Here's the kicker to what happened today. Rep. Barton, as it turns out, is a former oil insider who rakes in more campaign contributions from big oil than anyone else in Congress. He sold out his country in attacking the president today. He sold out residents in the Gulf states. Barton is essentially the Pat Geary character in The Godfather, Part II. He should be reprimanded and investigated for his comments today.