I enjoy, no LOVE, my place at Rose Valley Lake in PA. Perhaps you have seen some of my photographs that I have posted here ocassionally, or visited my  sets on Flickr (around Rose Valley Lake and  creeks and rivers)  The beauty remains despite reasonable and rational development.

I love it so much that I am, In fact, disappointed every time I have to leave here to return to “Civilization.” That said, I also understand that private citizens have a right to use their private property in ways that they see fit, so long as the proposed uses are in line with the general guidelines and zoning of the area.

The “Friends of Rose Valley Lake” are stepping beyond the bounds of good citizens, as they are now seeking to block an individual from using his property in accordance with the zoning laws of the area. They are asserting that by granting this man access to his property (through the State fish commission property) he will somehow be violating the law.

They write on their homepage that:

” The ‘intent’ for Rose Valley Lake, was to ‘prevent developments . . . and retain the area in generally primitive conditions,’”

They then are somehow complaining that this citizen is willing to “trade with the PFBC one acre of land (generally inaccessible to the public) and $15,000 in exchange for an expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake.”

Apparently the fact that he isn’t asking for a flat trade of one acre for another, but rather giving the state the land, AND $15,000, isn’t sufficient. Also, apparently the statement that the one acre of land is “generally inaccessible to the public” is meant to imply that is somehow a negative. Interesting in that many believe that in order to meet the objective of maintaining land in “generally primitive conditions” we should keep people from going there. (Remember, the biggest enemy of National Parks tends to be visitors to those same parks….)

One final comment from them. They are argue that the proposed trade would be for an “expanded farm lane right-of-way through Rose Valley Lake public lands in order to facilitate private development.”

Note this citizen isn’t proposing to DEVELOP public lands. He is simply seeking access to his privately owned property, so that he can exercise his legal right to develop his property as he sees fit, in accordance with the local zoning ordinances.

I ask–who are the unreasonable ones?

Also, they are requesting people sign their petition, but there exists no comparable avenue to elicit support for the land owner.  I have created a form, and would appreciate your taking the time to respond.  And for the record, I am interested in learning about BOTH sides of this.

Does transparency mean that you tell everyone everything you do and why do it?  bust you violate all levels of confidentiality?

It seems to me when people an organization promise transparency, they are acknowledging a problem and suggesting they can no longer continue doing things the way they have always been done.  I realize this is not always the case, in that sometimes we’re just promising to foster an environment of trust, but that trust is based on the concept of sharing information.

reach leads me to ask these questions is the reality of organizations promising transparency while then defending your actions as being consistent with how things have always been done. If things have always been done this way how is that being more transparent?  Or to put it another way, if you have always been transparent why promise transparency as if it is something new?

I welcome your thoughts on these questions.

“For those questioning the appropriateness of the celebrations on Sunday night, especially at PSU, keep in mind that many of us were In middle school. Those were the most impressionable days of our lives. It completely changed our lives and views.”

He wrote much more, and I took the liberty of making it more readable, and posting it over at our joint blog, http://thefathersonchats.com.

Please, go read his thoughts, and share yours. These thoughts are the ones we need to share, and preserve.

We don’t like PowerPoint and we don’t like presentations.  But as much as we want to blame the tool we find we cannot leave this crutch behind.  Perhaps it is because we do not see it as a tool that assists in our delivering content but rather as a surrogate, a stand-in,  so that we aren’t the ones being observed, but rather it is our slides.  Too often we expect (or are required) to have our presentations “stand alone” or worse “speak for themselves” (I say worse, because when given this mission it rarely actually means including the voice of the presenter, but rather that the written words must contain all the thoughts.)  Yes, we cannot leave the world of wordy slides.

Chris Brogan at the time reminded us of the importance of “big pictures” (real images) that convey the emotion, or the sense of the topic discussed, but that we as the speaker should deliver the content.  He also shared that we should remember that presentations are about the audience and our connecting with the audience.  If we are to connect, we cannot have them getting lost in reading the words (the many, many, often forced to be tiny, words…) on the screen.

Here is another take on just that very thing:

So my question for you is this:  What sort of presentation do you prefer? Do you want all the information laid out before you in verbose slides, ensuring you have all the information at your fingertips for later, or are you instead a person who learns best by listening and asborbing?

Leave your comments, or tweet me @SCMProfessor

It at first seemed a rehash of the old story.  As Google’s street mapping cars drive by the apparently record your WIFI address and map it to the GEOLOC (GPS) coordinates to enhance navigation. ¹  But then the story got, well.. interesting.

It turns out that they’ve also been collecting and storing data from those unsecured hotspots.  Anything that was being transmitted during the time those cars were driving by may have been picked up by Google’s software and stored.²

So, as if to prove to people that they should be encrypting their wifi networks, the Google car has been capturing the actual DATA being transmitted.  Now keep in mind, this isn’t just the data that is being sent out over the internet. Oh, no.  This is everything you are doing over your wifi network.

Saving homework to a network drive?

GOT IT.

Moving pictures or music from one computer to another?

GOT IT.

Updating your business’ financial spreadsheets on the network drive?

GOT IT.

But we shouldn’t worry, because Google doesn’t want to do evil, and so they are doing everything they need to do.  They will make adjustments to their software to stop “eavesdropping” on your digital “in home” conversations.  And then, at the end of the article, they tell us this:

Google says it will work with local authorities to show what information was collected and make sure it is disposed of properly.

Yup–have no fear.  Whatever information they have “accidentally” collected will be given to the local authorities to dispose of “properly.”

Honestly, I am more concerned about my financials getting handed around than I am anything else, but does this strike anyone else as… well…. odd?  And remember, you don’t have to be doing something “illegal” to have information that could be embarrassing or personally destructive if  released.  ^{3   4}

Usually the local authorities need a warrant to tap into your phone and data lines.  They certainly need a warrant before they can go into your homes. (Just ask Jason Chen) but what happens if someone “just happens to give them information?”  Can that information be used?  I mean, it essentially has the same weight as “we received a tip from a citizen that…”

Should we be worried?  What are your thoughts?  Big Brother, or a “Tempest in a Teapot?” ⁵

So now we face  the BIG PROBLEM.

By shifting to a policy where everyone is now to be insured, we open the floodgates of demand (okay, a bit much. But we certainly will allow millions more in.) Demand for services will increase. So it would make sense that prices would increase to balance out the demand (remember Econ 101, all else equal, in the near term an increase in demand will result in an increase in price. In the long term it should result in an increase in supply, as the market responds to the increased demand for the product).

Will we see prices increase? Not for the consumer–they are capped at the Co-pay. And now we are seeing pressures to not raise prices from the supply side (and the insurance companies will be SHOT if they raise rates significantly).

So what happens now? If prices cannot go up, then demand will remain (unrealisticly) high. Unrealistic in that demand is acting free of the market place.

With demand high, and the inability to increase prices we will see no real “benefit” to more providers entering the marketplace.

More to the point, even if we could see more providers enter the market there are significant barriers to entry. Consider the medical field:

1. Doctors must go through extensive training, and then licensing (not to mention the fact that they never really get it right–so must keep “practicing”)

2. medicines must be approved after rigorous testing, and their labs must be approved, and so forth.

3. Various other licensing and authorizing are in place for therapists, assistants, nurses, and the like.

Supply cannot respond quickly, and with a rising demand and supply unable to keep up, and with no pricing mechanism to regulate the demand we will face:

Shortages of service resulting in long waiting lines/delays.

And how do you deal with shortages? Since the market forces are not allowed to work, we are left with the government stepping in, once again, to fix the mess of it’s own making. They will have to “ration” care.

Sorry–it’s a fact. In every nation that has shifted to “socialized” they have faced shortages, lines and rationing.

It’s not something we can “do better.”

It’s economics.

The whole initiative is predicated on a few arguments:

1. Costs (prices) are too high.
2. Insurance companies are “making too much money”
3. Millions of people don’t have access to care
4. The Health Care people are receiving is poor (oh, wait, it’s not about the actual care…)

So let’s tackle this. The basic problem now comes down to a discussion of supply and demand/economics.

As the system currently works we have two sets of perverse incentives fighting against the consumer (and one of these incentives takes place with the willing, yet unknowing, assistance of the patient)

First, the perverse incentives of the patient:

Currently, the “cost of entry” into the health care system is high (monthly “Insurance” rates) but thanks to low, or no, co-pays, the marginal costs of most health care transactions are quite low.

Given the low costs incurred per visit, and the high “sunk” costs incurred to enter the system, the insureds (patients) who HAVE insurance are incented to go to the doctors more frequently, and to go ahead and get the prescriptions (Hey, it’s only $3 copay at Wal*Mart!)

Of course, this is a mirage. The actual costs of each visit and each prescription are borne by the insurance companies, which then have to recover their costs through increased premiums, which of course has everyone screaming that the insurance companies are “gouging” the customers.

On the other hand, we have a set of pricing incentives that also conspire against the consumer. The ‘care providers” are aware that the patient/customer doesn’t see the actual costs–they only pay the co-pay. So given this we have a series of perversions that are at play:

1. Doctors are more able to prescribe tests/medicines, and the like, since they will receive little if any push-back from the patients because of costs. More services with a low marginal cost to the consumer/patient, but a higher total cost, paid by the insurance companies.
2. Insurance companies work to lower their costs by negotiating to pay health care providers a fraction (some value less than 1) of the billable rate. Thus the providers are incented to increase their prices the maintain their revenue stream. This increases the costs once again.

So these two twists to the problem work once again to force the insurance companies to have to raise the rates (really on everyone) to cover the payments they are having to make.

Now–as consumers, we see that we are paying a high “sunk cost” as a monthly fee and, rather than view this as traditional insurance (where I am betting against myself) the consumer wants to try to get at least that benefit back out of the “system” (and is encouraged to do so, by “low co-pays”)

Sadly, the whole mess was brought on by our desire to protect everyone and provide some level planning to health care. The “free market” actually would provide better incentives here, placing limits/governors not only on how much people are willing to spend on services, but the prices that people would have to pay. If service providers want to stay in business then they would be forced to price competitively based on the market, and the market would be making the decisions based on the consumers. As it stands now, with the “same co-pay regardless” the consumer has no indication of value, and the market cannot respond. Viagra is as valued as Interferon and as Motrin.

What to do when everything costs the same?

I am not alone in my expectation that the Health Care (insurance) reform will not improve Health Care (it won’t make bad doctors good ones, for instance) and it won’t improve access since lower prices have that pesky effect of increasing demand–in a field where the barriers to entry for suppliers are significant.

I will say this:  Welcome to the new “Grand Experiment.”  If it succeeds, then by all means celebrate (but could we get a good solid definition of success on which we can all agree?)  But (and this is significant) if it fails, how many will have died as part of the experiment, and will we ever be able to recover?

One final note:  As researchers we have to seek, and get, informed consent from human subjects before we can experiment on them.  Did you get the forms?

He is also a self-professed liberal. This is not surprising. He believes that we need to look out for our neighbors, and his view of neighbor is expansive. So understandably (I hop) I found myself pondering if I am missing something. Is there something “great” about liberalism as we know it today? And if it is “great” does that mean conservatism somehow misses the boat?

After much reflection, I realized that we have two problems facing us. First, the liberal ideal of caring for those around you is not only a good one, it’s Biblical. We are called on by Christ to love our neighbors. And Christ didn’t draw any neighborhood boundaries, either. On the other hand, we are faced with an ever-enlarging government that, despite all the best intentions and heartfelt goodwill, never seems to deliver on the “big promises.”

My conclusion? Liberalism doesn’t scale–and it wasn’t ever intended to. For us to love our neighbor we must be in contact with our neighbors. We can care best for those we touch. I suspect this was designed into our nature.

There have been many articles and books written, speeches given, and studies done, identifying that we respond more positively, and give more freely, to concerns closer to home. So we are hard-wired to care for those around us. This “local giving” may not be motivated from a pure heart, but at least we know it happens. Superfreakonomics gives us a perspective on this altruism: ‘Most giving is, as economists call it, impure altruism or warm-glow altruism. You give not only because you want to help but because it makes you look good, or feel good, or perhaps feel less bad.”]

So we, for whatever reasons or motivations, generally want to help our neighbors. Surely that extends to those we cannot see, correct? Well, the authors of the book SuperFreakonomics would perhaps argue no. Not only do they essentially argue that liberalism doesn’t scale, they go a step further and discusses research that indicates that, when given an opportunity, people will not only fail to behave benevolently towards their neighbor, they will in fact, cheat them. But what is most interesting here, is that, in the research they discussed, the cheating occurred most often between people who were not neighbors. “In the data, List found an interesting split: the out-of-town dealers cheated more often than the locals.”

So here is where I believe liberalism, or altruism, fails. When we ask the government to step in and perform altruistic acts, we ask the government to do a few things on our behalf:
1. We want an non-person to demonstrate humanity. We ask that the government “care.”
2. We want the government to make the “right” choices about what and whom to care for. Of course, we find that often that means bringing the “bacon” (or “Pork”) back to our own districts, where we “see the need.”
3. We want the government to do all this, without actually requiring that we pay for it, and simultaneously wanting the government to make sure someone else pays for it (“raise the taxes on the wealthy.”)

So over time, we find that government is called on less to be altruistic on a grand scale, and becomes for nearly all a way to force others to give money to causes and people they otherwise might not support, while simultaneously bringing resources to bear on my own local problems. Government then takes on the roll of proxy for the same local concerns we used to care for ourselves!

This is, of course, simply a blog. I make no pretense of conducting large scale research myself on this topic. I am simply tying together my readings, and my observations of the world around me. It seems to me that most people want to help those close to them, and most when presented with true and compelling need or tragedy, will give. But when we rely on our government to function on our behalf we become disconnected. We no longer have those “feel good” moments that cause us to practice “warm glow altruism.” Government

And then, over time, we stop caring.

So for those that have been listening to our podcast Real Tech for Real People, we have talked quite a bit about the numbers of people that don’t have high speed (broadband) internet access.  We have been reporting the numbers we had previously read that had anywhere from 40-45% of the population does not have access.

Okay, I am confused. FCC says 96% of households have, or have access to, broadband.

“No less than 96 percent of households either subscribe to or have access to broadband service, according to an F.C.C. task force, which presented a status report to the commission last month.” (see commission report here)

The article reports that the task force goes on to report that:

• median speed is 3 megabit/second ¹
• 1/3 of households “choose” to not subscribe

The seem to be dumbfounded that so many households would choose to not get high-speed internet.

“The most interesting question here is the one that the F.C.C. can’t answer: Why have 33 percent of American households that have access to broadband elected not to subscribe? The reasons “are not well understood,” the report says. A survey focusing on the nonadopters is under way.” (see Pew survey for breakdown of demographics)

The astute reader will note a few things here:

• 33% of “households” does not equal %33 of population.
• “have access to” is not clearly defined.  Does this mean “can drive to Panera?” Or are sitting under a satellite?
• The assumption that these households “elect” ( or choose) to not subscribe is a poor assumption
• There exists a Pew survey (see link above) that actually gives strong hints as to why they don’t have it–so why aren’t they “well understood”?

I have sat through many presentations where the demographics have been dissected ad nauseum, along with conclusions!  Usually it revolves around the high cost of delivery of low quality service to rural areas, $50-$80/month for .5, to 1.5 megbit/second.  Think about that.  If you pay $50 for FIOS for 15 mb/sec service, you are paying the same price for 30 TIMES more speed/capability than the same price for satellite internet, without the latency (lag) issues associated with satellite.  And the satellite internet puts a 17 GB download/month cap on your use! Oh, and with FIOS you can also get TV service, and phone service.

Of course, there are other issues as well, including the fact that some segments of the population prefer to live their “first life” rather than a “Second Life” interacting in a real rather than a virtual world.

But I cannot get past the simple, obvious fact that “access” that is over-priced and under-capable is not really access at all, but political double-speak.

Do you know people without a “broadband subscription” (let’s say, for this discussion, broadband at home)?  Why do you think they have “elected” not to subscribe? Or if they have told you–please share!

Tell me–what do YOU think?  I would like to share your thoughts in our next Podcast that we record Tuesday night, 20 October 2009.

“I had to hold my nose, and vote for Specter.  Now I have to do neither.”

Why vote for him, you say? Well, years ago, when I was sitting on the knee of (well, on the floor, looking up at) my Grandfather, I asked him why we should support the Maryland US Senator Charles “Mac” Mathias, since he was about as liberal as the (then) junior Senator from Maryland, Paul Sarbanes.  He explained that “he may be a monster, but he’s our monster.”  A rather cynical view, but at the time (late 1970s, and the heart of the “Carter Economic Disaster” the likes of which we STILL haven’t seen since) it was clear that if Mathias lost the primary the democrat candidate would most likely win the seat, reducing the numbers of Republicans below the line allowing for a filibuster.  So keeping that number was important, if only for the greater good.

So, I learned the lesson well, and followed the logic.  When necessary, I have voted for a candidate I didn’t like “all that much” because of the greater good.

I most likely would have again.  But now, thanks to Senator Specter’s decision to return to the Democrat Party, I am free once again to vote conscience.

I am now only left with one question:  how will our good friend over at “Pressing the Flesh” respond?  Will he welcome this lost sheep into the Democrat fold after all these years, or will he actively campaign against that former Republican?  I await his post!

Enjoy!

Jason

First thank you for all your newsletters and emails that you share with the world.  As a business professor at Penn State, I find it refreshing and useful to see a business person not only being successful and touting their success, but sharing the inner-workings of their decision processes.  Certainly this most recent email with the Twitter/$500K explanation is great to show students how to actually conduct an analysis for a business decision.

I did want to answer your three questions, and then as for what amounts to a “favor” from you (to someone you don’t know.)

First, the questions:

1. Am I crazy, or crazy like fox?

Crazy?  Well I would say not–but if the choice is simply either/or, then crazy like a fox.  I actually believe you are far from crazy.  You have conducted a detailed analysis of the situation, evaluated what history has shown, and made a deliberate and informed decision.  All decisions have risk, but it appears you have worked to limit the risk (or at least understand it.)

2. What’s the value of a Twitter follower?

This one, honestly, is a “it depends on the follower.”  Of course, you have accounted for the “it depends” piece by eliminating group after group, and working down to just how many out of a million followers with be “valuable.”  I have found that followers, AND following, are quite valuable for the ways I use Twitter–and I use Twitter in different ways for different groups.  I use Twitter to connect with at least 3 (sometimes overlapping) groups.  First, there are the “supply chain” professionals actively engaged in my profession and field of study.  Then there are the educators, specifically those that are using technology to reach students.  Finally, there is the geo-specific group of folks here in Central PA, that I reach out and touch to stay connected with my community.  ed: (Of course there always exists that 3rd group–actual friends and family!)

Each has value, but in different ways.  Can I monetize this? Perhaps–but that’s not quite what I am about in a direct sense.  Although I would like to think that, as we all improve our skill sets, learning from one another, we all enhance our earnings, potential and kinetic (to steal from Physics).

3. What’s the value of of being one of “The Suggested?”

This is an interesting one.  I think being one of “The Suggested” is great in your type of area, where you are offering services that are of value to nearly the full range of Twitter users.  I suspect if I were to show up on the list, I would end up with a large number of followers with whom I have little in common, and that “twitter-stream” would cloud the engagement with the communities I have worked to develop.
This discussion is actually what I like most about Twitter–it allows us to develop our own communities, meeting nearly an infinite set of needs and desires truly providing a platform for community.  The communities are no longer bound by time, or space, and can grow organically as people connect with what is of interest to them.

The “Requests”

//**requests deleted–for I hope obvious reasons**//

Thanks for perhaps reading this far down–I realize your time is far more valuable than mine.

Best wishes.

While I haven’t heard back from Mr Calacanis I wanted to at least share these thoughts with you, my reader.

S

One of Reagan’s favorite stories concerned a man who goes to the Soviet bureau of transportation to order an automobile. He is informed that he will have to put down his money now, but there is a 10-year wait. The man fills out all the various forms, has them processed through the various agencies, and finally he gets to the last agency. He pays them his money and they say, ‘Come back in 10 years and get your car.’ He asks, ‘Morning or afternoon?’ The man in the agency says, ‘We’re talking about 10 years from now. What difference does it make?’ He replies, ‘The plumber is coming in the morning.’

Thanks, Historynet.com for making this available to us.

I have to wonder–are we heading down the road not only to socialism (which most people thought Barack would bring) but also towards the miserable life we saw in the Soviet Union?  As rumors are starting to circulate that the White House is forcing the CEO of GM to step down, and putting further direct guidance attached to the loans the government is providing. one cannot help but wonder who in the White House has the background, and the skills, necessary to make decisions–business decisions–to dictate how a major auto manufacturer should operate.

Don’t misunderstand me–I am in favor of accountability for those who spend government dollars.  I believe that when the government loans money there should be a viable plan in place to demonstrate that the money will be repaid.  I just am not convinced that government is best suited to manage business.  Certainly not “private” business.

I am left to wonder if the government has not only exceeeded their authority, but exceeded their ability.

Banks are in trouble because they loaned out money to people that are having a hard time paying them back.  That’s mortgages, and credit cards, and car loans, and… well you get the point.

So the government gives money to the banks.  OUR money to the banks.  Money from the people that are having a hard time paying the bills.

As I see it, this results in taxpayers (you know, those of us giving the money to the Government to use “wisely” on our behalf) owing two debts instead of one.  I have the original debt that I have a hard time paying, and now I have this NEW debt that my government has assumed on my behalf.  Thanks, Government.  You’re a peach.

What would I have done?  Well, given that “let things work themselves out without government meddling ” isn’t a good idea (apparently) I would have said “hmm…. let’s give the money to the people that owe the money.  Let them pay the banks back, so the banks get the capital they need, and we don’t drown our populace in debt.”

Imagine that.  The government supporting the banks through helping the people the government is really here to help–THE PEOPLE!

Thankfully, we have people like Jon Stewart on our side.  Unfortunately, the government doesn’t listen.

But you should.  Get a cup of coffee and take a 10 minute break from work and watch.

Storming Media is fast becoming the place to go to PURCHASE public domain government documents.  Yup, that’s right.  They are selling documents to you that your tax dollars have already purchased.  How do they get away with this?  They do it by providing the added value of having already done the search, and if you want, printing and binding the document.  Well, here it is in their own words:

Storming Media is a private, independent reseller of Pentagon and other US federal government reports on many subjects. Whether you are interested in biochemistry or military strategy, weapons or noise pollution, or anything in between, Storming Media delivers the information you need with speedy and courteous service and with our money-back guarantee that you will be satisfied. You may order any of our government reports in printed and/or downloadable PDF formats.

They also sell copies of research conducted by students at government schoools, to include my former school, AFIT–the Air Force’s Graduate School.   You can imagine the conversations that took place with students when they found their work being sold by this company.  “But it’s mine, how can they make money off it?”

The answer gets a bit convoluted (and actually echoes back to some conversations on Twitter about cheating and ownership.)   No, it is not “yours.”  You wrote it.  Your name is on it.  But since (for the military students) the government paid you to conduct this research, the research and the report are owned by the taxpayers, through the US Government.  They bought it.

Of course, there are perhaps a few wrinkles here.  What if the student actually wasn’t a government employee?  What if, as happens at AFIT through the DAGSI program and others, the student was a civilian, attending and paying tuition?  (And perhaps on a DAGSI scholarship, but that is NOT the same as being paid to attend school.)  Who owns the rights to that document? The author should–but that hasn’t been tested yet.

So back to Storming Media.  They take the works of others already available through electronic means, and will sell you the electronic copy, or will print and bind a copy for you.  And just to be clear, they do not give any royalties to the authors.  Not a penny.  This is legal, but I am not sure it is ethical.

So I ask you, dear reader–do YOU think what they are doing is ethical?  Leave a comment and tell us your thoughts.

It was interesting.  I went to the story that went with the photograph (you see it has the Telegraph below it.)  The story didn’t actually have that photograph.  But the photo was available on their site at this location, and is in larger for here:

For most of you art afficianados out there, you will (hopefully) draw parallels to religious iconography through the ages.  How often have we seen Jesus the Christ, and the Saints, and other “Holy People” portrayed with halos?

Accident?  Subtle message?
Either way, it was off the Google news page half way through writing this.

One of the first issues we had to grapple with, however, was our task. We were tasked initially to look at this with the title “Performance Driven Outcomes. (PDO)” I was convinced that the phrase was wrong. It wasn’t a simple disagreement of semantics. It was a fundamental way of viewing the problem. It seemed to me that the PDO approach focused on what you do, and that the outcomes derive from that. If we let our performance drive the outcomes we achieve, we will have high marks but may not ever be successful.

At the time, I wrote (in discussing the DoD):

…we see clearly why we have this disconnect. The politicians and the media are looking for outcomes, and we are actively measuring and providing outputs. Congress wants to read about enemy forces overtaken and a war won. We want to talk about sorties flown, numbers of bombs dropped, and parts avail-able on the shelf.

This is, of course, not a problem limited to DoD.  It’s a problem that faces every organization (and dare I say it, even our personal lives.)  The problem is that often we use surrogates for the outcomes (dollars spent, dollars earned, customers served, students enrolled) and we don’t focus on the Outcome.

Generally, the outcome tends to be amorphous, and thus harder to nail down. That doesn’t mean we SHOULDN’T nail it down–just that it is more work.  For instance, Nike is conducting an overall review/restructuring of their operations, and apparently they have the “outcome” in sight:

“In light of the current economic climate, it is more essential than ever to sharpen our focus on the consumer to maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management in the marketplace,” he said. “The decision to reduce our workforce is a difficult one, but it will put our business in the strongest position possible to continue to deliver long-term profitability and growth.”

Of course, the devil is in the details–specifically how they operationally define “focus on the consumer.”  In fact, if you read carefully the quote, you will read that they are focused on the customer to “maximize opportunities for product innovation and brand management.” Do you think they will “get it right?”

I am actively seeking your thoughts on this.  specifically in three areas:

1.  What do you see as the difference between these two phrases (or do you even see a difference?)

2.  Does your organization focus on the “Outcome” or are they distracted by measuring outputs?

3.  Do you think in a time of economic crisis it is more, or less, important to focus on “Outcomes?”

Many callers talked about how we need to raise the gas taxes, not only to provide funds to repair the highways, but to get people to learn to conserve, and to support alternative fuels. In fact several callers felt we needed a tax “floor” implemented immediately.  A “tax floor” would mean that if the price of gas dropped below a threshold (most said $3/gallon) then the price would stay at $3, and the government would scarf up the difference.  In that way, the government would reap the “windfall profits” of low prices (instead of the consumer).  (see my past discussions regarding windfall profits here.)

Interestingly, if the price rises and falls in part due to fluctuations in demand (and demand changes relative to price) would the price charged ever get much below three, if the gas stations knew they would have to just “give” that to the government?

So I want to know, what is YOUR opinion about gas taxes?  Are you in favor of a higher gas tax?

Look forward to your answers.

Dear UE Local 1110 Members,

I empathize with your plight, I really do. But I wonder if you thought through all of this.

The company, your company, just didn’t have the money. They couldn’t pay you. As they say, you can’t get blood from a turnip. They were unable to secure the loan that would be necessary to keep their business going, and to pay you.

They really had no choice. They had to close.

Bank of America determined that a company that only had 3 days of reserves was not a good candidate for a loan. They chose not to “throw good money after bad” and denied the loan request.

In response, you… sat down?

As a result, BoA has now given a “loan” to your company. A loan that they will most likely use to give you what you have demanded, and then they will in all likelihood still close. Just after 60 days.

So you won. You have forced BoA to give a loan to a company that by every indication has no intention of paying it back. A company that in all likelihood will be declaring bankruptcy in less than 60 days.

Assuming that the BoA “bailout” was used to fund this, all you have done is take money from your fellow tax-payers (and presumably yourselves, once you regain employment.)

So where, again, was the victory here?

Dominic Salvucci and Jimbo Lamb both thought it was a good idea, and we set a time, and the podcast proceeded from there!

It turns into a discussion about technology in the classroom, and we are setting stage for further discussions on technology, and how we introduce and allow students to use technology.

Let us know what you think in the comments here, and if you want to join us in a podcast, let us know!

-S

Having just made made my estimated tax payment (late, yet again, I know…) was reading through the IRS 1040 ES tax pamphlet, and came across a list of list of expiring tax benefits.  I have (using the power of the Jing Project!) excerpted from that document that list:

Why would I list this?  Well, I find it quite interesting that, as part of the Democrats efforts to eliminate Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich” they are letting these evil tax cuts die.  You know the ones..  That credit for encouraging energy efficiency?  Oh, and that pesky credit for research (darn those tax-evading scientists!)¹

Interestingly, despite his obvious leftist leanings, Dean Dad hasn’t commented on the expiration of the tax benefit called “Tuition and fees deduction.”  He also hasn’t commented on the loss of the educator deduction from the AGI.  I wonder why?

So my question for you, dear readers is this:  Why were these tax cuts/benefits evil, and how do they only help the rich?

¹ Interestingly, several of the podcasts I have listened to lately have applauded the Obama election, and talked about the expectation that the floodgates of funding will be swinging wide. Hmm… at the same time that we remove the tax credit for conducting research? Apparently (and I just surmise here) the only “good science” is that which is directly funded by the government.  Ahh, yes, suckling…

The Democrats have, for a very long time, (read, 4 years) been running around claiming that the Bush Administration, and the Republicans, are running a “politics of fear” only able to be re-elected when the American people are “afraid.”  Well it sure looks to me like the Democrats are doing the same thing.  Oh, they aren’t trying to make us afraid of terrorists.  They are making us fear the economy.  Fear a loss of jobs.  Fear each other.  Take, for instance, this comment from Obama’s acceptance speech:

Tonight, more Americans are out of work and more are working harder for less. More of you have lost your homes and even more are watching your home values plummet. More of you have cars you can’t afford to drive, credit card bills you can’t afford to pay, and tuition that’s beyond your reach.

I am sure you see it.  We should be afraid of what may happen to us if we don’t elect Obama.  In fact, the whole first third of his speech (and of every speech) was designed to instill fear into our hearts.

Hey–I am not saying it isn’t a great style.  It works.  It is a formula for speech-writing that has been shown through the ages to be successful.

It is also a speech designed to highlight one party, and their vision of the future, in comparison to another.  I believe we call that “being partisan.”  I don’t think anyone faults Obama and the Democrats for being partisan.  After all, it was a “Democrat Party Convention” after all.  But what is surprising was the criticism put foward by the Obama camp as read in the Mercury News:

Obama campaign spokesman Bill Burton called the speech “well-delivered, but written by George Bush’s speech writer and sounds exactly like the same divisive partisan attacks we’ve heard from George Bush for the last eight years.”

Hmm.  partisan attacks?  Let’s see… what could those be?

Because next week, in Minnesota, the same party that brought you two terms of George Bush and Dick Cheney will ask this country for a third.

For over two decades, he’s subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy – give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else.

You see, we Democrats have a very different measure of what constitutes progress in this country.

The speech goes on and on with these sorts of dichotomies. They (the Republicans) don’t care about, want to hurt you, only want to help their cronies.. but WE (the Democrats) care about you, and are willing to do what it takes to help you.

That, my Fellow Americans. Is partisan divisiveness. Don’t complain that Republicans do that, when you did it the week before.

Take the GE commercials, for instance.  They have laid out clearly, in several commercials, how they are actively engaged in alternative energy projects.  GM touting their lower consumption and hybrid and electric vehicles.  Boeing and their lighter and less fuel consuming aircraft.  The list goes on.

As I see it, they are telling us the things that are already going on. Steps that are being done today, based on research and development conducted for at least the past 8 years (and more likely 20-30 years.)  Clearly, we are seeing today the fruits of labor and investments made in the past decades.

On the other hand, we have Obama’s commercial.  In his commercial (hey, he approved it!) he points out that the hands that do many every day things can also things to put in place alternative energy programs.  Like wind power. Alternative fuel cars.  Solar power. All noble thoughts.  And he is right, our hands can do those things.  In fact, as evidenced by not just the other ads, but our own experience (and the fact that the video used shows locations already doing these things).

So just what will Obama bring to the table? How will he enable our hands? Hmmm?

It seems to me that the Democrats are the ones playing off the fears of the American public.  Not the fear of terrorists, but fear of energy failures.  And they are promising…. um… wait, I had the memo right here…

Oh, yeah. Change.

Now, if we could just hear what that change is, and how it will be different.

I’m still waiting.

One more thing:  the last time this was done, under Carter, the expected revenues just didn’t materialize.  According to the report published in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected.”

That got me thinking.  What people are really saying is not that they want to tax “windfall profits” (defined at the Financial Dictionary as “A sudden unexpected profit uncontrolled by the profiting party.”) but rather people are upset that the oil companies are making money by charging the consumer a higher price than they used to. Yup.  It apparently is unfair to charge a price that the market will bear.

Hillary Clinton, on May 1st is quoted as saying “The oil companies have made out like bandits, and there is no basis for them to have these huge profits.”

That said, I started to look around and see what other companies are earning these sort of “obscene” profits, during what has been described by Obama as “a recession, or worse.” So, first, I looked at the percentage profits earned by Exxon the most-oft used target of opportunity by the left.  For that past three years, Exxon has earned between 9 and 10 % profits (computed by dividing their “net income” into “total Revenue”–all data from http://finance.yahoo.com the hotlinks on the company names will take you to those pages)

Exxon
Net Income    Total Revenue    ”% Profit”
2005 36130              370680           9.75%
2006 39500              377635         10.46%
2007 40610              404552         10.04%

So, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me, but perhaps I missed something.  Perhaps that 10% return in unmatched by any other company.  So, I decided to look at another company.  Yes, I had a biased selection.  I chose Apple, Inc, for two reasons.  First, Apple has had strong success making in-roads into several markets (computers, cell-phones, music), and secondly, because it seems Apple tends to be the computer platform of choice by those on the left. 

Well, it turns out Apple has performed comparably to Exxon in the first two years, while beginning to signficantly outperform Exxon in 2007.

Apple
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 1335                  13931           9.58%
2006 1989                   19315         10.30%
2007 3496                   24006         14.56%

Now, it was pointed out to me that people don’t need and iPhone, or an iPod, or even a Mac, so that comparison is flawed.  People apparently do need to consume gasoline however (I point to my previous discussion about the gas tax for why many do not need, or even consume, gasoline.)  I conceded this point.  I would, however, argue that computers have become ubiquitous, and no operating system is more prevalent than Microsoft’s Windows. So, it makes sense to look at Microsoft’s profits.

Microsoft
Net Income    Total Revenue    “% Profit”
2005 12254                39788           30.80%
2006 12599                44282           28.45%
2007 14065                51122           27.51%

Amazing.  If Exxon’s 10% profit is evil, I can only imagine what must be thought about Microsoft.

But, in all fairness, this doesn’t tell the most recent story. I can hear your critique now “but the oil prices only started really ramping up last fall, and didn’t really approach $4/gallon until the Spring 2008.”  Good point.  So what happens if we look at the quarterly numbers for these three companies, instead? (there will be some missing data, since not all companies report on the same dates.)

Exxon Apple Microsoft
6/30/2007 10.43%                          22.70%
9/30/2007 9.20%      14.54%         31.17%
12/31/2007 10.00%     16.46%         28.76%
3/31/2008 9.32%     13.91%         30.36%
6/28/2008 14.36%

So, even when Exxon was under attack from Senators Clinton and Obama, their quarterly earnings, though large, were still smaller than either Apple’s or Microsoft’s as a percent profit.  (And remember, if their total revenues were much larger than Apple’s so were there costs.)

The question then is:

Are we upset that oil, as Senator Clinton said ‘have made out like bandits, and … have these huge profits.”  Or are we upset at the price we must pay, and we lash out, without reason, at the oil companies because they are the most visible target?

——————————————————————————

n.b.: While I started this analysis back in May, It turns out the Wall Street Journal has recently undertaken a similar analysis, and arrived at similar conclusions, at least with respect to Exxon’s obscene profits of 10%.  They compared industries:

If that’s what constitutes windfall profits, most of corporate America would qualify. Take aerospace or machinery — both 8.2% in 2007. Chemicals had an average margin of 12.7%. Computers: 13.7%. Electronics and appliances: 14.5%. Pharmaceuticals (18.4%) and beverages and tobacco (19.1%) round out the Census Bureau’s industry rankings. The latter two double the returns of Big Oil, though of course government has already became a tacit shareholder in Big Tobacco through the various legal settlements that guarantee a revenue stream for years to come.

In an appearance in the battleground state of Nevada yesterday, Sen. Barack Obama mocked Sen. John McCain’s energy policies, particularly his call for more nuclear plants. The AP reports that Obama said in Las Vegas “that he would not take nuclear power ‘off the table’ as a possible energy option, but blasted John McCain’s proposal to build dozens of new reactors in the U.S.” Obama “said he supports increased research into nuclear waste storage and recycling, but could not endorse construction of new reactors until those concerns are resolved.” The Las Vegas Review-Journal reports that an underlying theme of Obama’s attacks on McCain were the status of the federal government’s Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility, which is opposed by Obama and most of Nevada’s leaders, but backed by McCain.

“I’ll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we’ll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills,” the Illinois senator said.

He of course hasn’t stated at what point profits become “windfall profits.” So off to the definer place I went (you know, a dictionary!) According to The Free Dictionary, windfall profits is: “profit that occurs unexpectedly as a consequence of some event not controlled by those who profit from it”

This has me wondering what (or who else) has profited unexpectedly and therefore should be taxed on th eir “windfall.” I have a few thoughts:

The federal government should be “punished” because of the “windfall profits” they have earned because of the failure to index the Alternative Minimum Tax. Of course, when this particular creeping tax is brought up the Democrats “won’t move unless Congress finds ways to replace lost revenues.” (Perhaps the oil companies should insist that Congress extend them the same courtesy? Only tax “windfall profits” if they provide another way to make up the lost profits?)

Auto Manufacturers of fuel efficient vehicles seem to be reaping “windfall profits” according to this definition. This one, directly related to higher oil prices, is interesting because it hits other manufacturers of the less efficient trucks and SUVs. Perhaps the former manufacturers should be taxed, and subsidies be given to the latter? After all, it’s not “fair” that they are able to earn so much money.

In fact, how about those oft-maligned farmers. We are seeing record prices in corn and rice, in part due to the increased demand for ethanol. Of course, now we are seeing additional upward pressure due to the flooding in the midwest, again forces outside the control of the farmers (the definition of windfall.) Should these farmers now face a “windfall profit” tax? After all, they are earning this money on the backs of everyone who eats.

Seriously though, the point of this post isn’t to defend “big oil” but to point out that “windfall profits” makes a good sound bite, but there needs to be some serious thought, and definitions applied, before we start punishing.

One more thing:  the last time this was done, under Carter, the expected revenues just didn’t materialize.  According to the report published in 2006 by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), “The $80 billion in gross revenues generated by the WPT between 1980 and 1988 was significantly less than the $393 billion projected. Due to the deductibility of the WPT against the income tax, cumulative net WPT revenues were about $38 billion, significantly less than the $175 billion projected.”

Perhaps even more importantly, the CRS report goes on to say that any return of a “windfall profits tax” would be ineffectual, at best

Reinstating the windfall profit tax would reduce recent oil industry windfalls due to high crude and petroleum prices but could have several adverse economic effects. If imposed as an excise tax, the WPT would increase marginal production costs and be expected to reduce domestic oil production and increase the level of oil imports, which today is at nearly 60% of demand. Crude prices would not tend to increase. Some have proposed an excise tax on both domestically produced and imported oil as a way of mitigating the negative effects on petroleum import dependence. Such a broad-based WPT would tend to reduce import dependence, but it would lead to higher crude oil prices and likely to oil industry profits, potentially undermining its original goals. Because the pure corporate profits tax is relatively neutral in the short run — few, if any, price and output effects occur because marginal production costs are unchanged in the short run — a possible option would be a corporate income surtax on the upstream operations of crude oil producers. Such a tax that would recoup any recent windfalls with less adverse economic effects; imports would not increase because domestic production would remain unchanged. In the long run, such a tax is a tax on capital; it reduces the rate of return, thus reducing the supply of capital to the oil industry.

Joseph Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project at TaxAnalysts.com, spoke with Joe Segal about the history of “windfall taxes” on NPR.  For further information, go check out his blog, as well.

For instance, one blogger, in response to the various news stories, asks “ Surely I’m not the only one who sees the irony in this.”

Again, the regular reader of this blog may remember, I wrote at the time of the relief operations following Katrina, about the barriers that hindered the relief effort. While many chose to cast FEMA and specifically, President Bush, as evil characters, they have unfortunately confused politics with reality–and unfortunately this actually hinders real progress.

First, let me state that there were some political barriers to getting relief into the city of New Orleans. Alas, the politicians that hindered the operations were the Mayor of the city, and the Governor of New Orleans. I will leave it to my brother to add the specifics. Of course these were rather insignificant barriers, compared to some of the others.

The most important barrier to providing relief operations was the storm itself. People seem to forget that our usual “quick response” forces (the Air Force) couldn’t get into the airport for a few days because the runway was still under water. I hope it comes as no surprise that you can’t land cargo planes in water. Additionally, the storm blocked and destroyed the major roads used to move into the city. So even if resupply could have made it to the airport, there was no way to move it from the ramp, to downtown. Trucks from outside the area couldn’t move in either until the roads were cleared. Finally, ports were also damaged, so ships could not quickly move in. Once the physical barriers were removed, there were other problems.

Not all barriers to success were physical. There were problems with FEMA, and other disaster response organizations. Bureaucracy does at times get in the way. There were points of confusion centered around command and control. The local authorities did not want to relinquish their control, despite the fact that the operation was regional not local.

So, to get to the point of this post, we need to learn the important lessons from Katrina. The lesson is not that President Bush was a bad President, or that he willfully chose to withhold relief (as the comparison to the Myanmar tragedy would imply.) The true lessons are in how to plan for, and execute, relief operations. If we don’t learn those lessons then we will never leave the realm of political name-calling–condemning thousands more Americans when the next tragedy strikes.

Of course, the first is the diesel tax. Most Americans don’t drive diesel cars. But virtually all tractor-trailer rigs run on diesel. And the tax on diesel is higher than on gasoline. And, of course, trucks put more miles on the road than general use automobiles. This does mean a larger share of the $10 billion in tax revenue comes from trucking than from automobiles, both in miles driven and cost per gallon.

One could argue that since a disproportionate amount of the tax-revenue comes from commercial trucking, that this explains the lower savings per American. Perhaps. But one must remember that unlike the gasoline tax, the tax on diesel fuel ends up raising the cost to deliver goods–a cost that is passed through to the consumer.

The Washington Post article “A holiday from gas prices? – Fat Checker” points out that, when legislators in Illinois (including Obama) passed a similar tax holiday, the prices went down about 3%, and thus “only three fifths of the savings from reduced taxes was passed on to consumers.” The problem is, that sort of measure assumes that the price of gasoline would have remained steady throughout the period. Now, perhaps the analysis actually considered this reduction relative to the gas prices around the country, and what they meant was something like “relative to other prices without tax reductions” but that was not mentioned in the article. So–while we may not see a full 18, or 24 cent reduction at the pump, that does not mean that we aren’t saving that amount.

The Post article cites economists as pointing out that the increase in price could be due to an increase in demand. You know that pesky price/demand curve? And far be it for me to argue with the practitioners of the dismal science. Although I would point out (as I mentioned in the previous post) the demand for gas/diesel is generally thought to be relatively “inelastic” with regards to changes in price.

Just some points of clarification.

For discussion purposes, I would love you have you share here what your average weekly gasoline consumption is, and what you expect to consume over 12 weeks this summer. In my previous post I mentioned that I suspect most people fill up their tank at least once a week–so how much fuel do you use?

Leave a comment!

I was reading the blog over at “Imperfect Mommy” where I read, and at first accepted without questioning her comment “I read yesterday that suspending the gas tax would save the average American $30 over the course of the summer. $30.” Of course, then I felt rather guilty for not questioning the number. Not because I don’t trust her, but because it just seemed a bit “off.” At first I just figured “well, with almost 5 drivers in the family we are certainly not ‘average’” but then I realized–no one is.

My first thoughts, as a good researcher where:

• Who did the research that determined $30 per average American?
• How did the structure the demographic of the analysis?
• Did they consider that a significant percentage of “Americans” don’t drive? (And I don’t mean just those too young to drive.)
• What percent of the population lives in cities and doesn’t drive? Doesn’t even have a license?
• How many people would it take to have an every man woman and child each get “$30″?

So let’s look at some numbers.

• If the tax is $0.18 per gallon (for gasoline), then a $30 savings is the equivalent of purchasing 166.67 gallons of gas. In a typical 20 gal tank, that equates to 8.3 fill-ups. I know many people that fill up their tank at least once per week. The summer is 12 weeks long. If “most” people fill up only 12 times, that savings is really $45.
• According to the Washington Post, the revenue the government will lose will be $10 Billion dollars. That’s a hefty sum! If you divide 10 billion by 30, we can determine just how many Americans will be receiving this benefit. The answer? 333,333,333.3. Yup. 333 MILLION Americans each will save $30.
• According to the US Census Bureau, there are only 255,103,151 people in America.
• According to Senator Obama 78,230,182 more people will save $30 than are actually in the US. That’s right apparently we have 78 MILLION more people in the country than we think!

Now, these “quick and dirty” numbers are just that. I haven’t figured in the greater savings that the trucking industry would see, since they have a higher per gallon tax and a higher consumption rate. I also haven’t factored in the interplay between changes in gas prices, and changes in consumption. While it is argued that demand for gasoline is inelastic (that is, does not change much with changes in prices) there is some elasticity if people cancel longer driving vacations in the summer.¹

While the caveats I noted above could lessen the benefits of the tax “holiday” there are other issues to consider that would increase the impact for those that actually drive. To get to the $30 per average American, you have to ignore that most households are made up of more than 1 American (thus increasing the household savings), and that many Americans don’t drive, and most likely don’t even own a car. It would be interesting to figure how many people in large cities such as New York City rarely, if ever, drive.

The bottom line is this: The savings for people who actually drive in the summer is most likely larger, and potentially by a significant amount. Don’t just “repeat what you hear.”

Think about it.

Question it.

Challenge it!

¹ Interestingly, the demand for diesel fuel should be even more “inelastic” relative to fuel prices since that demand is driven more by demand for products delivered by truck. That demand is impacted perhaps only inasmuch as higher fuel prices leave less disposable income. A more “derived” demand elasticity.

Alas, all is not as clear when assessing the economy. In fact, a “weak dollar” has some significant benefits–especially for the “average” American.  And, for those readers here for Supply Chain information, the impacts of the dollar are felt throughout.

When the dollar is weak, it means that a dollar can buy less of a good or service produced in a foreign nation. BMWs and Computers can be more expensive. The costs to produce haven’t gone up, but rather the relative cost to produce when exchanging currencies. The result is we pay more (and buy less) imported items. keep in mind this also means the price of oil increases. This not only impacts us at the pumps but also increases the cost to transport goods. if the cost to transport goods goes up, consumers are more likely to purchase locally. (And this can mean locally produced since the cost to transport is most likely included in the price.)

But, it also means that goods and services produced in the United States are now more affordable in markets overseas. This means that, assuming we produce goods/services that people want, we start to export more.

Result? Imports–down. Exports–up.

What else does this mean? It means that here at home “American made” once again becomes a sign not only of (we hope) quality but perhaps affordability. Consumers may be paying more for everything, but if “American made” products are once again affordable (relative to the no longer “cheap” imports) then demand for these products should increase at home, as well as abroad.

Win! If demand for US made products goes up, we will find that production will increase. When production increases, employment increases. To top it all off, if energy prices continue to climb, the benefits of “off-shoring” (low labor costs, lessened regulations, among others) starts to be off-set by the increasing costs making “re-shoring” more plausible. Jobs come home.

One final note. I mentioned a few times the increasing costs of oil, and the impact on the pump. What would the silver lining be here? Think “Green.” Market forces (the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith) tend to be the best shaper of policy. Better than government, and far more successful that any promises of any politician seeking to create “Change.” I won’t speak for you, dear reader, but as you know I have started to look for alternative energy sources in my daily life, starting with a hybrid automobile. As petroleum prices increase¹
consumers start clamoring for alternatives. This creates markets² for alternatives.  Once the demand for alternatives reaches a point where the demand makes production viable, we will see alternatives flourish.  We are already seeing this with hybrid autos.  We are seeing the early signs of this in other energy sources as well, including solar and wind. But these discussions belong in another post.

Is it all buttercups and roses?  No.  There are disadvantages to a weak dollar.  Overall prices do go up.  Trips overseas become more expensive. I never argued that there weren’t disadvantages.  It just seemed that it was time to point out that there are some significant advantages to this shift in the dollar.

“Reading Rainbow Moment” To read more about strong, and weak, dollar performance, check out the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago’s site and specifically their page discussing this very topic.

^1. note, I don’t say fossil fuels. Read more here)

^2. market refers to the group of consumers or organizations that is interested in the product, has the resources to purchase the product, and is permitted by law and other regulations to acquire the product.

It struck me today that “tax day” is perfectly placed for politicians.  Far enough ahead of election day that we forget the pain, and far enough after election day that we aren’t thinking about the pain quite yet.

Coincidence?

To review the bidding, socio-politico-economic forces led us into a situation where pretty much everyone was happy with people buying homes they couldn’t afford, at terms they couldn’t meet, for properties that were carried on the books at more than they were worth [speculators, flippers, builders, race hustlers, municipalities, and regulators all joined in the fun].

This went on for several years, and everyone was happy. People got to live in better houses than they could afford, and pay very little for them. Builders sold properties (and built even more!). Banks and mortgage companies shifted risk into the future, secured by value that didn’t exist. Borrowers who wouldn’t normally get loans did. TV shows actually showed us how to buy homes on “interest only” notes as long as we could sell them before the ARM ballooned and make money on the artificial value increases. Prioperty tax revenues flowed into municipalities like rivers of milk and honey. Fund categories were created to continue the illusion; look, The Share Price Just Went Up!

The problem (as with *all* pyramid schemes) is that eventually we run out of new suckers to buy into the scam. At that point, the underlying value of what is being traded becomes important. If the “paper” value of the assets greatly exceeds the “actual” value of the assets (hmmm what happens to the value of a product when supply outstrips demand?). After decades of overbuilding, the “air was let out of the balloon” in many markets.

The same people who “made” $$$ all of a sudden “lost” $$$.

So here we are.

1. Experts are urging people to live in their foreclosed properties for up to a year and “slow roll” the eviction process [note: At least 8 months is possible in just about every state. Apparently, the key is to just stop making payments to your lender, and not acknowledge that anything is amiss. You don't even need a laywer in every case. It takes that long before someone with a gun actually shows up at your door.] ; and

2. An alarming trend of ex-homeowners trashing the homes on their way out has developed. Recent WSJ article noted that several banks/mortgage lenders are now hiring agents to go from home to home offering thousands of dollars to tenants to not trash the property while leaving.

So you simply sieze the property for up to a year and then demand a bribe so as to not reduce it’s value further.

AND WE WANT TO GIVE A BAILOUT TO THESE PEOPLE?!?!

the other steve

One would expect to read that Boeing lost the contract despite being the better aircraft.  That, somehow, the AF overlooked key performance characteristics of the aircraft.  That, perhaps, politics came in to play to select an inferior product.  But no.

According to the NYT, in the article titled “In Tanker Bid, It Was Boeing vs. Bold Ideas” from March 10th, Boeing (and its supporters in Congress) are instead making the nationalistic arguments about job loss and a loss of a national asset.

The company and its allies in Washington have already made a number of arguments. Among them are that too many American jobs are being lost overseas, and that sensitive military contracts should not be in the hands of a foreign company.

The debate about the impact on American jobs is a murky one, because large manufacturing projects typically involve operations in many parts of the world, regardless of which company has a contract.

Yes, the debate is murky, but not simply because of the potential loss of American jobs.  (Let’s ignore, for the moment, that Northrup-Grumman is an American company and that reports are the aircraft will have final assembly in the US making this a Washington State job loss, not a US one.)  This comes down, unfortunately, to politics over policy.

As the NYT also writes

 On Capitol Hill, the blow to Boeing has set off a protectionist furor among many lawmakers. And on the campaign trail, the Democratic candidates for president, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, suggest that the Boeing loss reflects other Bush administration policies that have resulted in jobs moving offshore.

But the hot rhetoric could sound overly nationalistic, and even hypocritical, once the real implications for jobs and national security become clear. Boeing, for example, would have made many of its own tanker parts overseas, and some experts say that claims of job losses to a foreign company seem exaggerated.

For now, though, the pro-Boeing, pro-America talk is showing no signs of letting up.

“We really have to wake up the country,” said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington State, where Boeing is a significant employer. “We are at risk of losing a major part of our aerospace industry to the Europeans forever.”

Representative Todd Tiahrt, Republican of Kansas, said: “It’s outsourcing our national security. An American tanker should be built by an American company with American workers.” Boeing would have done some of its tanker assembly in Kansas.

So we have National Democrats  on the stage arguing that this is another “Bush screw-up.”  And yet this is the same set of politicians who strongly argue we are fighting a war we shouldn’t have started, with troops ill-equipped to meet this challenges of the new battlefield.  Are they blind to the fact that it is just this sort of politics that has led to the failures to properly equip our troops?  Oversight of weapons system acquisitions that places a priority on location of sub-assembly manufacture over capability. (The B-1B aircraft had parts manufactured in nearly all of the 435 Congressional districts.)  As far back ask 1990 researchers and critics have argued that politicians have focused more on maintaining their districts at the expense of national interest.  According to Kennth Mayer, in his 1993 Public Administration Review article entitled “Policy Disputes as a Source of Administrative Controls: Congressional Micromanagement of the Department of Defense”

Critics argue that these interventions result in inefficiency because they are not based on any “rational” conception of overall defense strategy. Members are accused of examining the defense budget “in terms of how it promotes their own electoral prospects” instead of on the basis of national interest (Lindsay 1990, p. 7). Members are accused of attacking the Pentagon to create publicity, or even to achieve influence within Congress. DoD argues that the pork barrel incentive drives many congressional interventions, as members use their power over the budget to deliver programs and contracts to constituents (OSD, 1990, p. 19). Critics claim that the result is a defense budget choked with regulations and bloated with pork.

So why bring this up?  Because at this point in time, with our nation at war, politicians on both sides of the aisle are positioning for their constituents rather than for the security of our nation.    There are significant questions that could be asked, and perhaps should be asked.  Questions that would cut to the heart of issue of the adequacy of the aircraft to meet our military’s requirements.  But these seem to get lost in the rush to score points with the electorate.

Perhaps Congress would best serve the nation if they asked these questions:

1. What criteria did you use when evaluating one aircraft design over the other?
2. What impact will the larger aircraft (a “widebody” by designation) have on ramp space?
3. Will their be a reduction in “MOG” (or, “Maximum on Ground” ) due to the larger aircraft size?
4. Does a reduced MOG reduce the numbers of combat and airlift aircraft that can be co-located?
5. Will this aircraft type/size necessitate a change in the infra-structure to support it? (fueling stanchions, parking plans, hangars and doors, etc?)

These questions are external to the capabilities of the aircraft itself, but address the important aspects of total operating costs, and impact on mission operations.
¹ Boeing manufactured the veteran KC-135 aircraft (a 707 variant.) That aircraft first production aircraft saw service in 1957 and KC-135s are still flying today. The new tanker is intended to replace this aging airframe.

*As many of you know, part of my “history” includes working on weapon systems’ acquisitions.  I worked

I am unable to listen to my favorite drive-time AM talk radio anymore. I know you’re all crying for me. It seems like my (heretofore arguably semi-rational) talkbots are downloading their RNC talking points again, and the message is “John McCain is the Republican Candidate, Everebody Get In Goosestep err Lockstep err I mean Line!”

Now I don’t have a dog in this fight at all. As a card-carrying Civil Libertarian, I only get mildly interested in RepubliCrat (DemmiCan?) follies when our interests overlap (social issues for D’s, economic for R’s generally).

However- the argument from the bullies on the right now seems to be “We Need To Support McCain Because Otherwise We Will Get Hillary.” In various forms- the message is if you don’t support McCain, you are supporting ClintAma. BarIllary? What-ev.

Now a few years back (when I was doing my cypherin’ on coal shovels by candlelight) I took a class in rhetoric. I vaguely remember something about the logical fallacy called “The False Dilemma.” Sound familiar?

The underlying, unspoken assumption of the Bullies on the Right is that McCain would actually stand a ghost of a chance against Hillary Nation. Or the OpraBamicans. So therefore, all good soldiers of conservatism must abandon their principles, hold their noses, and line up behind McCain in order to not “throw their votes away and put HillAma in office.”

So- here we all are on September 5th, 2008. The “Dream Ticket” of McCain-Whoever has now taken up the battle standard and marches off into the meat grinder . . . then what? Will McMaverick enjoy the benefit of the free ride he has been getting so far once he goes up against a “true” progressive? Keating 5, Keating 5, hmmm . . . voting record, voting record, hmmm . . . old white guy, old white guy, hmmm . . . war pig, war pig, hmmm . . . do you think the MSM will let McCain’s and Hillary’s stench factor cancel each other out, and focus on “The Issues?” Not likely.

McCain is a pinata in a Louisville Slugger factory, he just doesn’t know it yet.

The “national polls” showing McCain competitive against Barillary in a head to head matchup (taken today) are a phantom. Give the MSM a couple of months to proctologize over John McCain and it will be a BLOWOUT.

You heard it here first.

So for my on again/off again friends on “The Right:” you can die with your swords in your hand or your [male genitalia] in your hand . . . choose wisely!*

Scorch

*apologies to my USMC friends for stealing part of their culture to make this point

The avid listener and follower will know that he and I blog and podcast together over at “The Father Son Chats.”

Enjoy his video!

I obviously asked what the legal basis was for that decision, since having already read through the appropriate legal documents (Title 15) I had not read anything in the law that would preclude it.  I was told it was “in the state code.”

“Oh? Could you give me a reference?”

“Hold on, sir.  Yes–go to our website and search for ‘Title 15.’”

“Thanks–could you tell me what paragraph in Title 15? I have already read through it and didn’t see anything that would preclude it.”

“Sir, we are not a legal research library.”

I started to argue, again saying I had already read through the title, and if she was going to give an answer she should be able to support it, but I gave up.  They won.

Honestly, I was not too pleased, since I was given the “it’s on the website” answer.  What really frustrated me the most though was that I was given a <B>definitive</B> answer (or is it declarative?) but they could not provide any support for their answer.

Should we push for legislation that would require government officials (especially those working answer lines, like the DMV and the IRS) to be able to support their answers?  If their answers will actually impact our behavior, our lifestyles, and perhaps our income taxes, shouldn’t we be given the source information, if requested?

Let me know your thoughts on this.

Prof

Faulty survey data takes many forms. Sometimes the questions are loaded, as with a survey about online gambling I wrote about in April. Other surveys have very low response rates, like a poll about the value of mothers’ work; or pollsters don’t disclose all of their questions nor results, raising fears they’ve cherry-picked those responses that reflect best on the polls’ sponsors. Also, many polls you may read about have been conducted online, usually among a panel of volunteers lured by online ads — considered a less-representative sample by most pollsters than respondents who are found by random-digit telephone dialing.

and:

Polls with pitfalls shouldn’t be discarded automatically. But often they are accepted automatically by the press and rendered indistinguishable from polls conducted by more standard means.

So there you have it. More criticisms of bad polling, bad data, and blind acceptance. And from a reputable source, to boot!
The Prof
1. And most recently in a fit of “hyper-’bowl’-e” misrepresenting students’ putting marijuana in muffins as “spiking a punch bowl,” two very different things, to be sure!

Many of you remember him as SecDef, and his significant increases in defense spending under President Reagan, but most will not remember the job that earned him the nickname “Cap the Knife.”

The floor is now open for guesses/answers.

The Prof(f)

(Cross posted from “the Lobby“) Okay, since we seem to have a strong interest in budgets, and federal tax dollars, I thought I would provide a link to the NASA Budget request for 2007. If you download the “full” budget request document, a 5.1 mb pdf file, that the total budget request is 16,792.3 million, or 16.9 Billion dollars. Now, we might be concerned about how effectively they use their dollars, the total request is barely more than half of the money apparently lost to rebuild Iraq. Hmmmm… Perhaps, if NASA was a tad bit more enterprising, they would offer to help find the money, and seek a 10% finder’s fee. What could NASA do with another 3 Billion?

I also would recommend that the interested reader go through the budget, as well as the various performance and accountability reports. Admittedly NASA, like and good agency, is in “salesman” mode, but they have done great things with their dollars, and are planning greater things further down the road.

I, for one, am excited about the CEV, and the “Moon, Mars, and Beyond” effort.

Oh, and while I mentioned it in a comment, I wanted to be sure to put the plug in here as well for the Planetary Society and their podcast. Always interesting, and if you make it to the last 5 minutes of each podcast, quite educational AND entertaining!

The Prof(f)

Now, while I haven’t been able to keep up with Randi Rhodes–even though I have succumbed, and added her podcast to my subscriptions–I still try to make time to go through the blog from the left–the lobby.

I do like their new look. I think it’s quite stylish. I do think though that the post about Alito, and then the post about New Orleans, go a bit beyond the pale. It’s alright to disagree with the decisions, but the vitriol–well, it’s a bit much.

For instance, Let (the main blogger) writes “Alito is a walking constitutional amendment and we all know it. We might as well have put the Religious Right and the head of every corporation up on that court.” Interesting, except David Broder, in his commentary last week, essentially argued that the problem with Alito is not his willingness to rewrite the constitution, but his rather literalist reading of it. In fact, it is the “left” justices that have most often been cited as “writing” law rather than interpreting it. Remember the “right to privacy”? Which amendment is that one? Hmmm?

And let’s tackle the New Orleans blog entry. “Anyone remember Dubya saying this? ‘”“I don’t think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees.’ Prior to Hurricane Katrina hitting New Orleans, Homeland Security reportedly knew what was to come, despite claims to the contrary and now there are documents to prove it.” (check out the link to the MSNBC site–go to “the lobby” to get the link–and read this blog. Seriously, it is worth it!) I have to agree that the President’s statement that no one anticipated it was perhaps hyperbole. But I suspect it was more likely a combination of a failure to brief the President by his staff, and an overwhelming sense of so many that it would never really happen.

I have family from New Orleans, so I as much as anyone know the feelings leading up to the hurricane. My family, being conservative, always expects the worst. However, I have been told that often the sense of the population has been one of complacency. It’s not hard to believe that, if the general population didn’t think it could really happen, that perhaps that view was shared by the local leadership in Louisiana. Just perhaps…

The Lobby(ists) go on to write “Not only that, but anyone tracking the story has probably read that the Dept of Homeland Security went through an exercise where a mock Hurricane Pam created all types of catastrophic damage. The results of the exercise were eerily similar to the reality Katrina left in Louisiana, Missourri, and Mississippi and this was way back in 2004.” Interesting. Should we spend billions of dollars after the DHS or DOD have a “doomsday scenario” exercise? I believe they have also done these for earthquakes, terror attacks, and various other natural and man-made catastrophes. What if the decision had been made to spend the money on the levies but we had actually lost San Francisco to another earthquake–would they have applauded our willingness to be prepared–or continued to attack, this time criticizing the inability to “get it right?”

So what is my point? What is the “golden thread of knowledge” to all this? Let’s be critical of the right things. Let’s get the stories “right” before we attack from the left.

Get this story while you can!

Yes, here we go–while many are worried that the Bush Administration is slowly (or perhaps, quickly) eroding our civil liberties, the various liberal “health advocates” are working hard to eliminate civil liberties where it matters most–at work, and at home! In fact, this story was so bizarre I had to check the date to make sure I wasn’t reading a left-over from April 1st!

According to this story in the Wall Street Journal, from Dec 20th, 2005, “Scotts Miracle-Gro Co. is taking its campaign to stamp out smoking among its workers to an unusual length: It’s threatening to fire smokers beginning next fall.” Yes, you read it right–if you smoke, you will be fired. Of course, many places have a “no smoking” policy, this policy goes further. If you smoke, you will lose your job. Not just if you smoke at work–but if you smoke at all. So, if you smoke at home… in your car… on vacation… it doesn’t matter.

Later in the article, we find “Next October, the Marysville, Ohio, company said it will begin randomly testing about 20% of its work force nationwide where it is legal to do so. (Ohio is among the states that don’t have specific smoker-protection laws.) The company says it hasn’t worked out the details of how to test employees. Workers found to be still smoking or using other tobacco products habitually could be fired, Scotts says, as long as they work in states where such termination is legal.” This is, of course, similar to the various drug testing policies in place both for government and civilian sector employees. What makes this step unique is the reason.

While drug testing is often defended as protection of the workers, and those around them, because “drugs” tend to alter behavior, this goes a step further. The companies are now attempting to force a change in your behavior specifically to lower the long term costs of their health care programs. Yes, that’s right. They will force you to be heathy.

So how far does this go? We have already heard from the fringes when it comes to second hand smoke–and that argument has now become mainstream. We have seen the (2nd rate–unscientific to boot!) movie “Super Size Me” become mandatory viewing in secondary education. There have even been those on the fringe that wish to tax fatty foods, since ultimately they can have a negative impact on health.

So let’s see how far this can go. The article continues:
“The tobacco initiative is part of a broad wellness program that includes a $5 million fitness gym and health clinic opened last month near the company’s headquarters. Employees on the company’s medical plan will have free access in the clinic to a physician, nurse practitioners, diet and fitness experts and a pharmacy with generic drugs.”

This sounds harmless enough. In fact, it shows that the company is willing to help those who have an interest in staying healthy. Nothing wrong here–and this should be applauded as forward thinking. But wait! There’s MORE!

“In return, every year employees will face a strict requirement: Take a health assessment through a program affiliated with medical-information Web site WebMD Health Corp. — or pay $40 extra a month in health-care costs. The health assessment starts with a form to be filled out online. Then, a “health coach” contacts the employee and arranges a treatment regimen for any health issues. The employee must follow through with the recommendations or pay higher premiums, though the exact amount hasn’t been worked out yet.”

So, there is a second edge to this sword. If you refuse to take an active interest in your health, they will charge you more for insurance. All in all, that seems fair–if you won’t take care of yourself, you should at least pay the consequences, as the costs.

Unfortunately, as noted, the whole premise of this story is that this company, and others, are actually going that next step. If you don’t fit their definition of healthy, then you cannot work for them any more. Whether it impairs your ability to work, or not.

As one woman said in the article: “‘The consensus is like, is this the end or is it going to lead to something else?’ she says. ‘Are they going to watch what we eat?’”

Perhaps it is time for me to blog on the NSA. My favorite lunatic, Randi Rhodes, has already contributed many ways, via broad conspiracy theories, for the government to abuse the average citizen with this information. She has said the government will use this to keep you from getting a job (“yup–they didn’t hire me. Musta been that darned wiretapping!”) to refusing a loan (“I am sure it couldn’t be the debt, and lack of income–the government is meddling in my finances again!”)

This story provides some interesting tidbits. For instance, while the title talks about eavesdropping, the story states that the major action they are taking is identifying calling/information patterns. This is often done without actually listening/reading anything. “Government and industry officials with knowledge of the program told the newspaper the NSA sought to analyze communications patterns to gather clues from details like who is calling whom, how long a phone call lasts and what time of day it is made, as well as the origins and destinations of phone calls and e-mail messages.”

Let’s be honest–we have known the NSA is a large eavesdropping organization ever since the book Puzzle Palace was published. That book ignited several firestorms when it was first published, as well, from people concerned about individual privacy, to those concerned about a government exercising total tyranny. Perhaps the NSA has already been used for all these, we shall never know.

Many years ago, the debate around the NSA actually included a discussion about whether the NSA would provide the action agencies (CIA, DIA, FBI) with any information they gathered, since to do so would reveal the capability of their sources. I believe we should be happy that they have at least been willing to use the information.

The question I have concerning the use of the NSA without warrant is this: If the intelligence gathered is used to identify, and stop, terrorist actions, and doesn’t go beyond that, what is wrong with that? I realize the information could be “mis-used” but that is true of any government agency that collects any information. How much information do you think the Social Security Administration already has on you? Thankfully, the history of the NSA has been one of not using or sharing information, even when useful.

I do not necessarily like anyone eavesdropping on my conversations. Those who know me have heard me argue for more, not less, protection of privacy. In this case, however, the NSA’s commitment to secrecy makes me feel more comfortable that they are actually watching the bad guys–and most likely couldn’t care less about the rest of us!

So, students–worry that your professor may catch you plagiarizing, but don’t worry that the NSA will try to stop you from getting that dream job. What is most likely going to get in the way there is yourself.

Okay, time for me to rant about Randi… LOL. I recommend you go watch this video show from CSPAN where Randi is interviewed on Q&A. within the first10 minutes of the show, they play a clip where she had “fought” with Janet Parshall. Randi thinks it is a “big thing” that President Bush suspended the “Davis-Bacon Act of 1931.” In fact, Randi brings this up as an example of Bush “lying.” Now, I am not sure of the connection between the suspension of the Act, and lying, but I am sure of one thing–this was not without precedent. As the quote below from the “CRS Report for Congress” regarding the suspension points out, the Act has been suspended several times. Admittedly, most suspensions were by Republicans, but only the suspension by Roosevelt was identified as “administrative convenience.”

The act has been suspended explicitly on four separate occasions. (a) In 1934,
President Franklin Roosevelt suspended the act in what appears to have been for
administrative convenience associated with New Deal legislation. It was restored to
full strength in less than 30 days with few people, seemingly, aware of the
suspension. (b) In 1971, President Richard Nixon suspended the act as part of a
campaign intended to quell inflationary pressures that affected the construction
industry. In just over four weeks, the act was reinstated, the President moving on to
different approaches to the problem. (c) In 1992, in the wake of Hurricanes Andrew
and Iniki, President George H. W. Bush suspended the act in order to render
reconstruction and clean-up in Florida and the Gulf Coast and in Hawaii more
efficient. The impact of the suspension is unclear for the act was suspended on
October 14, 1992, just days prior to the 1992 election. President William Clinton
restored the Act on March 6, 1993. And, (d) on September 8, 2005, President George
W. Bush suspended the act in order to render more efficient reconstruction and cleanup
of Florida and the Gulf Coast in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The act may also
have been suspended during World War II as part of the generalized emergency.

Amazing news, don’t you think?

Dick Cheney, the oft maligned Vice President, has once again gone to Iraq, showing support not only for the troops, but for democracy. What could be wrong with that? Hmmm….

Let me be the first to predict that the indefatigable Randi Rhodes will attack Dick Cheney. In fact, I suspect, but cannot prove, that in the Monday show she will rant and rail against the Veep, with much hot air, little substance, and broad conspiratorially minded accusations. Oh wait, that’s cheating on my part–that’s what she does on all her shows.

You don’t believe me? Go listen yourself…The Randi Rhodes Show.

Okay, let me toss a little ad hominem her way. I find her show entertaining, because she is so soooo… crazy. I find a small problem with her show, however. She used to have on her Bio at her site that she had been “voted” the most outstanding woman in the US Air Force in 1979. There are a few interesting tidbits here. That info is no longer listed. Perhaps because the Air Force doesn’t actually have such an award, I am told. I am not accusing her of lying, just mis-representation. I suspect she received that award not from the Air Force, but from another agency or perhaps a magazine, such as Good Housekeeping. You can still find this information on some places, if you Google “Randi Rhodes” and “Outstanding Air Force.” One such link can be found here. (update: this link is also no longer available)

You know, I will continue this later. In the mean time, I actually want to recommend her show to you. If you are an educated individual, you will find it to be several hours of hilarity. If you are not, or choose to believe anything, you might find it… ummmm… enlightening? Either way, it will amaze you.

The professor.

This is perhaps the first of many “corrections” to her errors. I find the show humorous, in that she is so wrong, so often, but depressing, since she rarely will listen to a contradicting, or correcting, view.

It’s often not “as simple” as what makes up lithium. Sometimes she supports the fiction that the military is doing nothing to provide support for families of reservists and guard members who are deployed. THAT is insidious, because most people think that she “must” know, since she served as an (enlisted) member of the US Air Force during the “dark” Carter years.

Go figure.

Do your homework. Check her out. http://therandirhodesshow.com

I commend this story to all. It is quite interesting to read that we cannot call US Citizens “refugees” because, as the article states, it “somehow implies that the displaced storm victims, many of whom are black, are second-class citizens — or not even Americans.”

Why do i find this interesting? Mostly, because it is the so-called compassionate left that are incensed. Okay, I find it more than interesting. I chuckle at the hypocrisy of the left. The left is the first to clamor about the “refugee crisis” and the need to help the refugees, but don’t want us to call our fellow citizens refugees. In fact, jackson (the reverend, not the erstwhile king of pop) calls it “racist to call American citizens refugees.”

It seems to me that, at a time when the left accuses President Bush of having an elitist, almost imperialist, view of the rest of the world, the left apparently admits that they view the rest of the world as second class citizens, and perhaps even judges them as a racist would.

Yup. The left is elitist. Wait–that’s not a shock to most of us on the right, that have known for years the left’s main goal is to maintain the dependence of the lower classes on their handouts.

Laters….

Yesterday, I wrote about the way technology has been used by individuals to create a virtual community of “The Diaspora.” Of course, many will recognize this as a decentralized, or distributed, network. There exists no central clearinghouse for information, except for those pockets of friends that have the ability to develop lists, and then farm them back out to friends and family.

The Washington Post’s story identifies another need–connecting those who are not connected, because they were unable to flee. For many reasons (all of which will be debated and discussed over the months to come) large numbers of people were unable to evacuate the city of New Orleans. They are effectively cut off from communications, even when located in what was called at the time, the refuge “of last resort.” The challenge? Who should be tasked to pull together these groups, collect the information about the survivors, and those that did not, and get the word out? Historically, that has been the role of the American Red Cross–a role fulfilled through the use of paper, pens, and pencils, and lots of sweat equity. Now they are tasked with finding highly technical means of doing this very thing.

The question that is being worked through is actually one tackled by many a business course. “How does one define oneself?” If the Red Cross views themselves as a provider of relief and comfort, but not technological services, then is their organization prepared to handle such a request? Should the Red Cross be in this business, or should they partner with another organization that perhaps would be better suited for these sorts of technical challenges?

And most importantly, should there be only one organization/firm/business to tackle and coordinate the technical challenges?

These are heady times for technology. This isn’t about the “internet bubble” of the late 1990s. It isn’t about technology stocks making people wealthy. We now see technology being used to ameliorate the wounds of our brothers and sisters. Technology with heart.

The Professor

An addendum:

I have rarely spoken here about my research, but now is perhaps a time for me to speak. I have supervised several research efforts looking at the way we provide support to humanitarian relief operations. While much of it has focused on general command and control type issues, perhaps the most interesting one was a paper that tried to develop a centralized checklist for the NGOs to use to coordinate logistics/supply chain support. Imagine, 30 or 40 different organizations, each trying to get their materials and their people into the ravaged areas, hindered by few/no roads, limited airport access (ramp space is precious–especially if you also have to host a “tent city”) and each optimizing their loads for their cargo, not for the overall cargo required to go in to a disaster area. Quite a challenge.

The problem? These organizations either cannot, or will not, work together. And none can or will take direction from the US Government. Wow–imagine trying to corral these cats…

Did you ever find yourself wondering whether something is, or is not, satire?

I find it difficult to believe that someone thinks Bush should be doing something about the Canary Islands’ potential to devastate the East Coast. But then again, *I* still find it difficult to believe that people are blaming the Feds for the response (in New Orleans–they seem to be doing alright elsewhere) to the Hurricane and flooding. Perhaps, when people are given enough warning that a potential exists for a devastating event, the people themselves should be held responsible for not planning appropriately. If you lived in New Orleans, you have heard for years about the potential for a Hurricane filling the bowl. If you live in California, you know about the San Andreas Fault. You have made decisions to remain–and those decisions have consequences.

Apparently, Americans continue to prefer to blame others, for individually made bad decisions.

Take a day off from class…

Then I read the opening line for January 2001 that includes “a crony from Texas.”

Yup, THIS is going to be one VERY objective piece. Not.

Seriously–people are critical of FEMA, and argue that it has not responded quickly enough to the crisis in New Orleans. (by the way, I have not heard this criticism about their response to the HARDEST hit areas around Biloxi.)

My question for everyone critical of FEMA is simply: When was the last time those critical have had to plan and execute a contingency operation of this scale? An operation where most airfields are unsuitable for use, most roadways remain blocked or are “gone” as is the case with many bridges, and people trying to conduct relief operations are having shots fired at them?

Now, imagine trying to plan a major contingency before a crisis like this, and trying to figure out exactly what roads will, and will not, be available? Imagine not knowing which buildings will be available for occupancy, and which will not. Then imagine surrounding the city that everyone seems to fixate upon with two other states (minimum) in the same dire need, and imagine the gall that would be required to drive past all the needs of those people to satisfy the needs of those in “the Big Easy.”

This is an operation on a grand scale, and for those that haven’t done it, perhaps it looks “easy.” It is not–but I encourage them to try.

After seeing the comments from many (most noteably on http://tulanestudentinfo.blogspot.com/, in their criticism of FEMA) I am surprised anyone would want to be part of FEMA. Then again, I know many that are, and I solidly stand behind them, and their brilliant, and herculean efforts.

The Prof.

Perhaps it is time for me to return to my roots. I have spent many an hour reminiscing about my days in what was then known as “The Future Farmers of America” (now, officially known only as “The FFA”). At the time, I remember being proud to be part of a family-centric tradition. Family farmers, passing down land, and practices, from generation to generation, and instilling in each generation a love for the land and for what it can produce.

Of course, I also remember the discussions about how “corporate farming” was taking over, and driving the family farmer to extinction. If left to their own devices, the agri-business folks would control the world. I, of course, scoffed.

My how times have changed. We still have family farmers, and agribusiness has contributed greatly to their success, and their ability to produce significantly more than ever before–feeding hundreds of people per farmer, where before the average farmer would feed 25, to 75, people.

But now we face a new challenge–seed as technology.

Monsanto’s claim that saving some seed, and replanting it, is the moral equivalent of bootleg copying music, would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious. Let me explain.

Stealing software, music, or movies generally requires one person making a copy, and then giving or selling it to another. Generally speaking, we have allowed (through the courts) for people to make copies for their own enjoyment and use. It’s why we have MP3 players in the first place, and why Apple is able to sell music through iTunes. People want to be able to listen to their music. But also, we understand that these items are truly technology. They are collections of machinery combined to provide a capability that didn’t exist before. essentially they are “things” that did not exist.

It seems to me that this is somehow fundamentally different. Soy Beans have always existed. Scientists have adjusted the DNA perhaps, and somehow twisted it to kep it from responding to “round up” herbicide, but it’s still “Soy beans.” Soy beans are natural, but somehow if you start with something natural, and you perform experiments on it, you gain “rights” to it that weren’t there before.

Perhaps God should consider suing Mansanto. After all–he owns the original rights, don’t you think?

Well, I am back. And I am disappointed. No, it’s not the usual disappointment on a Sunday afternoon, where my college team has let me down yet again. This is more serious.

The link above shows a touching testimonial about a woman who’s brother died while serving his (and her!) Country. At the time he died, he was looking for weapons of mass destruction. Weapons that they point out Bush was “confident” existed. Now let me point out, they are weapons that Kerry, and Clinton(s), and Kennedy, and many others also thought existed. But while I am saddened to hear of the specific loss, I am more disappointed in something else.

They missed the point.

Perhaps in an effort to make her brother more “human” to the web browser, and perhaps to make it so that people would want to contribute to their cause, they show her brother with a young Iraqi child–wearing her brother’s helmet. Her brother “got it” better than she did, and perhaps better than most others do.

The war, while certainly an effort to stop the development and spread of WMDs, was bigger than that. It was about freeing an oppressed people. It was about showing people in the region that their is more to life than “existing” and that one doesn’t have to “take” the abuse heaped on them in the name of religion by zealots who distort any religion for their own power. It was about freedom, and yes, democracy.

A college freshman was telling me just the other day about a story she heard, where hundreds of camcorders were given to Iraqi’s with just one direction–go record whatever you wish. No direction for political agenda, or taping military actions, or anything else. And what did they find? People happy with Americans, and a young child who adores the American soldier, and how well they treat him. What did this young child want to be when he grows up? An American. AN AMERICAN.

Her brother saw the opportunity to change a young child’s life, and he made that difference. Let’s rejoice in freedom for women, and children, everywhere. Let’s not just write them off, otherwise we prove to the world the very thing the left says we shouldn’t–we would be selfish, self-absorbed Americans, unwilling to do anything for others if it means we are less comfortable.

The US Military understands that mission, and is prepared to meet it. America, shouldn’t you as well?

Have you ever wondered if the political bickering could ever stop long enough to just “be reasonable?”

I have been hearing for weeks now criticism of the Department of Homeland Security’s consideration of plans for postponing the elections for a few days in the event of a terrorist attack. The charges are usually made that this is another effort by the Bush Administration to steal an election, and that it is an effort to subvert the democratic process. Scary and heady stuff, if true. (And yes, I heard the most scathing criticisms come from the Air America gang–Al Franken, Janeane Garafalo, and that “Morning Sedition” bunch, but there was also a hue and cry from members of Congress–people we expect to be reasonable, to reason, to be “deliberative.”)

A couple interesting tid-bits from history. Let’s start with recent history. It wasn’t that long ago, actually about 4 or 5 years ago, there was concern that we would end up with a national crisis that would require the suspension of the constitutional process, so that another President could remain in office. I, for one, always get nervous when discussions about setting aside the Constitution occur, and I had my issues with that particular President, but I did not in any way expect him, or any other President, to do such a thing.

Now, something a bit “longer” out.  If you all will recall, we are Constitutionally required to have the election on the first Tuesday of November.  The “electoral college” then?  The electoral college members meet in each State on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December” (see: Electoral College Information). Why is there such a long delay? The inauguration is then set for later in the following January. Simply because when we first started as a nation, the vast physical distances were also vast distances in time. People did not get the “exit polling results” from around the nation tipping the electorate off to the outcome of the election before polls had even closed in the western part of the nation. Each person (then, white male) would vote their conscience, without any insight into the voting practices of the other members of the voting population, and would not find out the final outcome for months. There was no angst, no nashing of teeth, no complaint that they failed to have instant gratification.

This brings us back to today. What was the proposal that generated so much anger, and venom, towards President Bush and the Department of Homeland Security? The proposal was to, if necessary, delay the election for a few days to ensure a fair election following a terrorist attack. The election would still be held with more than enough time for the electoral college to meet, and most certainly wouldn’t interfere with the Inauguration held a short 2 1/2 months following the election.

Is the plan so unreasonable? Let’s think about this for just a minute. Who is most likely to benefit from an election held under the cloud of a recent terror strike? I would posit the Republican candidates would regardless of incumbency. Why would I say this? Assuming conventional wisdom from the 2000 election is still true (and there is some question about this, for Florida this fall) then the vast majority of absentee ballots are cast by conservative military members, and cast for conservative candidates–most likely the Republican candidate. If a terror strike was within a day or two of the elections, people would perhaps be afraid to go to the polls–who wants to go gather in large groups? Large groups are terror targets! This would then have the effect of reducing voter turn out, and place far greater emphasis on the absentee ballots.

Let’s be reasonable. Let’s all work together, as Patriots, seeking the good of the nation, to ensure that all citizens are given the opportunity to vote. Let the citizens choose to vote without fear. Let the citizens have a few extra days to go to the polls if necessary. If you vote Absentee, we give you quite a long time to make your decision–it just has to be received before election day.

Think of it as “absentee voting” on the flip side, and for those that choose to actually appear at the polls.

Oh, and your homework assignment? Read up on the electoral college, and the history of our Federal election process. Did you know that the Senate used to not be elected by popular vote? Check it out!