Down to the Studs

I’ve gotten somewhat hooked on a show on Discovery Home called “Holmes on Homes”. The basic premise of the show one of rescuing home improvement projects gone bad. Mike Holmes, the main man, comes to people’s homes and fixes all of the problems contractors have created in botching their projects.

Holmes takes the homeowners and audience through the house pointing out the deficiencies and what needs to be done. Wherever he finds a problem, he pulls everything out, down to the studs, and starts over. The key for him is doing it right.

So why would he be successful in finding people who have these problems? Well, there are a couple of reasons. One is the unfortunate fact that there are people that want to make the most profit by doing the least work. Another is not caring about your finished product, as long as you get paid. Sometimes, customers don’t know enough to protect themselves. And many times, people simply want things done cheaply, going for the cosmetic fix and ignoring the underlying issues.

That last one seems to be a recurring theme throughout the world. Something isn’t right, so we cover it up with something more pleasing to the eye or ear. We spin what was said so it sounds better. We lash out at people who disagree with us trying to make ourselves look better. We put on a fresh coat of paint to cover that nasty stain.

Maybe we need to start taking more things down to the studs, fixing what is really wrong and not just what is on the surface.

:: :: ::

I Take Sides on Two Feel-Good Proposals

I wrote last week about the unenforceability about a number of our laws, regulations and policies. Generally, it comes in the form of feel-good propositions that don’t address the underlying issues and only punish those who behave badly. If they get caught.

Since then, two additional feel-good proposals have surfaced, one that really won’t benefit us and one that just might.

The first is Sen. John McCain’s recommendation that Congress do away with the Federal tax on gas from Memorial Day through Labor Day, the peak of the vacation season. It is a great idea, with several problems. First, is the potential cost. Not to us, directly, but to the government. As it is, we are financing nearly everything—the war in Iraq, the so-called “economic stimulus package” (I’ll probably use mine to pay some bills)—through other nations, mostly China, and private investors from the Middle East. We’ll simply be adding to that enormous debt.

Second, is the fact that the oil companies are more likely to pocket that money themselves. Sure, call me a cynic. But think about it. Do you know how much that tax is per gallon? I don’t either. I wouldn’t know if the price I paid at the pump reflected it or not. There seems to be little rhyme or reason to how the prices are set now. And based on past congressional hearings, it seems there would be little difficulty in the CEOs defending their pricing practices.

It sounds good, but won’t do much good.

The other proposal is for a credit consumers bill of rights. This actually might do a lot of good, if it can get passed. As it stands now, the banks own the relationships with consumers. They dictate the rates, they make unilateral changes to the “agreements” (which is the wrong word since they are terms of use), and they punish consumers for the bad, greed-driven decisions they, the banks, make. Banks argue that instituting these types of protections for consumers will lead to higher interest rates and fewer people with access to credit.

Um. OK. Predatory lending has led, in large part, to the economic situation we are facing today. It is what has driven the mortgage crisis. As a nation, we are net spenders. In other words, we spend more than we create. It might be…no, it would be…good for the economy as a whole for more people to live within their means. That will lead to greater financial stability as a whole and put us on the road to real recovery.

Another feel-good idea that might actually work. And it’s enforceable!

:: :: ::

Lack of Enforceability

There’s been some debate in the Louisiana State Legislature lately about a ban on automatic weapons. Gun-rights advocates view the move as an infringement. Those favoring gun control applaud the move. But as several people have mentioned, even if the law passes, enforcing it will be near impossible.

That got me thinking about all of the other laws, rules, regulations and policies we face on a daily basis. The majority of them are only enforceable after someone has committed the crime.

I suppose it should be that way, making us all accountable for our own actions. For many of the laws, that seems to work well enough. There are others, though, that are noble in their purpose—like a ban on automatic weapons—but seem ridiculous once signed into law. It’s a feel-good measure that comes with a hefty price tag, and, because there are no measures that actually prevent ownership in the first place, law enforcement officers and the general public are no better off than before.

Consider this: possession of illicit drugs is illegal. Yet, we have an enormous drug problem in this country. And the costs of fighting it are astronomical, when you consider all of the costs involved in loss of life, drug treatment, prosecutions and incarceration. Anti-drug campaigns have had some good effect, but they are underfunded and only have a beneficial effect on a percentage of the population that can participate.

We need more proactive funding to support these protective laws, not reactive enforcement once the bad deed’s been done.

:: :: ::

Acceptance

Acceptance of how things beyond my control are. That’s probably one of the best lessons I’ve learned. I’ve been thinking about that a lot lately. It’s odd that last week, Paul Williams would write this post titled “It is what it is”, discussing the same concept.

And much like The Serenity Prayer encourages, I have focused more attention on improving the things I can control.

But I was reading an article from the March issue of The Atlantic called “Marry Him! The case for settling for Mr. Good Enough”, and something in there made me realize that the hard part is deciding what to do about the gray area. That space between what you can directly control and what you can’t. That space where things that you do affect how the people around you act and react, especially in relationships.

Many of us focus so much energy trying to change what we possibly cannot, while blaming others for the things we fail to do for ourselves. When we get to that in-between space, though, we sort of short circuit. We expect people to act in a certain way, reading our minds to figure out what we want. Then we punish them when they don’t get it right, even though they thought they were doing something good.

They might try one or two more times, but as long as we keep punishing them for being wrong, they’ll take the path of least effort. Making things progressively worse. Most likely, they are doing the same thing to you. We are all to blame. We create the vicious circle with someone creating another one.

If we do the work that’s necessary, if we take control in developing the relationship and allow the others to do the same, we can create something of shared control, resulting in a beautiful relationship.

Of course, that means that we are wholly accountable for what we do. If the relationship fails, it’s on us. That is a scary thought. It’s probably why we don’t do it.

:: :: ::