Two small problems:  first, there wasn’t any “polygamy” per se going on; and second, there wasn’t any abuse going on.

Have you lost your freakin’ mind?!  Think about it.

“Polygamy” as defined by the law requires at least “Bigamy” which requires “marriage.”  “Marriages” didn’t take place.  Not even “Civil Ceremonies.”  By the definition used by the DPS/CPS in Texas, “polygamy” is running rampant in every urban center in the USA today.  That is, women having multiple children by multiple fathers.  Think about it.

Abuse.  O.K., after the state seizes the children and waterboards them for a few weeks, what accusations do we have?  Zip.  Zero.  Zilch.  Remember the history of “false abuse syndrome” where children are talked into lying about abuse by “professional social workers?”  First showed up in the 1980s after a couple of very embarrassing cases (large $ settlements by state governments needed to cover up the mistakes).  Yeah, it’s a “documented syndrome” and the victims of such cruelty have to deal with the false/implanted memories well into adulthood.

Underage girls having babies!  Again- zip, zero, zilch.  The CPS recently had to backtrack on the two (!) cases of “underage motherhood” they claimed to have found.  One of the “teenage girls” was 20 and the other was 18.  Oops.  O.K., take a random slice of 400+ urban USA citizens:  what is the rate of “underage motherhood;” even “underage mothers of children with adult fathers?”  Anyone got the numbers on NYC, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago?  LA?  O.K., what about the abuse heaped on the young males in the compound?  Aside from the abuse perpetrated by the DPS/CPS, there have been no credible reports of any actual abuse taking place- and, most tellingly, no indictments.

Think about it some more:  if the state had ANYTHING credible by now, you would have seen it splashed across every major media outlet in the world.

I pray the wheels of justice finally begin grinding away at this shameful situation.

Oh By The Way:  FOLLOW THE MONEY!

[acres of useless land converted into multi-million dollar prime real estate with quarried stone buildings, riding trails, etc.  Paranoid?  Hey, sometimes they really are out to get you- especially if you dress funny, talk funny, and disrupt the local economy of small-town bible belt America.  Good background information on the relationship between the "cult" [sic] and the local town folk in a recent Texas Monthly article.  Chilling.  And *nobody* in authority inhte Stae of Texas is willing to tlak about *any* aspect of this situation; from the Governor on down to the local Sherriff.]

ShareThis

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.”  Well, alas, the unthinking, and yet surprisingly educated, left ensured that she wasn’t the only one.

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.

ShareThis

To answer that question, I have this post. But this post is the first in what may be a long series about moving new-media social networking disruptive technologies out of the echo-chamber.

I found myself at a conference this weekend arguing for the importance of social networks and, at the end of it, I realized the challenge we face is taking social networking and new media out of the hands of the techno-saavy, and put these tools, “embed” them, if you will, into the lives of the every day practitioner.

So what do I mean by practitioners? What practice do you think of when I write that? Doctors? Lawyers? Bartenders? How about almost anybody that does something. Now, in my specific instance I was first thinking of researchers, and then extended that to a discussion about connecting textbook authors to their customers (both faculty and students!) The lesson I am taking from this however is that this goes further. We need to take the various lessons of social networking and apply them where we are.

So for this first post of the series, let me share the discussion about researchers. I sat on a panel discussing how to get research (and funding) from the “public sector.” Once we reminded the audience that the public sector includes more than just the Federal Government, we talked about the various ways of “finding” the requests for proposal, and we even talked about the importance of “contacts.” One of my colleagues even jokingly commented that “once you can fake sincerity you have it made!”

Then it hit me–it’s really about developing social networks!

I first asked how many in the audience were using Linked-in or some other social networking tool. Not surprisingly, less than 10% in the room were members, and of those who weren’t literally NONE had even heard of it. I then used that as an example of how one can build networks (professional social networks) with people who not only have similar interests, but hopefully a network of people who sincerely want to help others succeed.

And what was the big secret I brought to them? No secret, really, but just something that I think has often been lost in these communities. As I mentioned in my talk on Social Networks the success lies in the development of relationships. These relationships are best when everyone brings something of value. If one wants to succeed, then develop these networks, and ensure that you are a “giver.” if you honestly seek to help those in your network, you will find that others will come to you, and often come to you with funding.

I ended up recommending a very good, very easy reading book, Love is the Killer App. This book talks about the importance of sincere sincerity, and the importance of truly putting others well being ahead of your own. What I really like about the book is his emphasis on improving yourself so that you have something of value to offer. It’s about being ready to give, not being ready to take. Now, some would say it is the application of the Golden Rule, others would say it’s just Karma, but the reality is you will find that caring about others, and helping them make the important connections in life, really does work–for them and for you!

So far, there’s nothing “new media” here. Stand by for other posts. In the meantime, please, share with us how you have successfully made “the connection” with people.

ShareThis

Alternate Title: Confused About Race in 2008 America

A recent imbroglio on another blog got me thinking. Not about intellectual fascism (which set the whole thing off), but about the ObamaNation defending Reverend Wright by saying “Jerry Falwell is Just As Bad.” And then deleting rational discourse to the contrary from their blogs, but I digress. [Why would one start a blog, create a controversial thread, and then clap ones hands over ones ears shouting "LALALALALA?" Weird.]

Then Peggy Noonan wrote an interesting piece in the WSJ Weekend Edition about it (The Reverend Wright controversy. Not intellectual fascism in the blogoshpere.). She basically said she was puzzled by why anyone would even be concerned.

So here we have two competing ideas:

- Reverend Wright is Wrong (for using the pulpit to preach arguably racist/separatist/paranoid ideas; the “Black Liberation Theology” in his words).
- Reverend Wright is Right (or at least we shouldn’t get upset about his using his position to preach the arguably racist/separatist/paranoid stuff).

Of course, if a white preacher were preaching a “White Liberation Theology” (No, wait- we do! And they are rightfully shunned, ostracized, investigated by the IRS, infiltrated by the FBI, etc. etc.).

Hmmm.

O.K., let’s start over. If a pastor were to claim from the pulpit that the Jews were responsible for all the ills of the world, that the USA blew up the WTC on 9-11 in order to launch an aggressive imperialistic war for oil, that supporting Israel against the PLO/Hamas was terrorism (No, wait- we do! They’re called madrassas and . . . )

Oh never mind.

What fascinated me about the Wrong Reverend Wright was his unabashed recognition/premise that “Black People Are Inherently Different From White People” (on much more than just skin pigmentation). That, and the enthusiastic support his victimology philosophy gets from his (predominantly middle class/wealthy) parishioners (more appropriately, “followers”).

If Stephan & Abigail Thernstrom, Thomas Sowell, Richard J. Herrnstein, Charles Murray were to ever even *notice* that some black/white differences in America were heritable as well as cultural . . .

the other steve

(A charismatic separatist religious leader espousing a theology of victimization and hate to a small, isolated group of enthusiastic supporters who are convinced to turn over large amounts of their lives and livelihoods to “the cause” *can’t* ever be a Good Thing . . . can it?)

ShareThis

I would like to think I am rather “tech saavy.” I do podcasts. I run two WordPress blogs and a content management site (go visit Supply Chain Innovations Today!) but I have to say, online meetings are frustrating simply and completely because of the techonlogy.

It seems that I end up spending more time configuring, reconfiguring, and tweaking, than I do having the meeting. I just went through 20 minutes of set up and troubleshooting so that eLluminate would work–and now I wonder if any time I change any of my configuration I will have to go through it again. And changing my configuration can mean something as simple as “rebooting the machine” or opening another audio using program.

But online meetings save time, allowing us to be more “productive” right? Perhaps, but perhaps not!

I know how to drive. For regular (face to face) meetings I show up with a pad of paper, and am ready to go. I am able to use my car time to prepare my thoughts, and/or listen to podcasts, and as one commenter wrote at Cole’s blog, if I take public transportation I can catch up on reading, be it RSS feeds, blogs, or books. (Gotta love the Sony eReader!) So instead of getting frustrated with technology, I am being productive.

I long for the day when I can tell my computer “I want a meeting with Cole and Dean Brady (go visit his blog) and I want to share a powerpoint, while working on a word document” and it will turn on all the right software, connect to the right addresses, and let me focus on participating and taking notes (using my pad of paper, of course!) Ideally, one of us should be able to just say “make into podcast” and it will take the whole meeting (which it dutifully, already recorded) and send it to an appropriate RSS feed! (Dave Winer, are you listening??)

Let’s go back to the car for a moment. While I can’t (yet) tell it where I want to go, and have it take me there, I don’t have to tweak it to get it moving. I get in, I buckle my seatbelt (you all do that, right?) start the car, and drive. I may talk to the GPS (see–cool!) and let it talk back (again, analog, human interaction.) I don’t have to tweak the spark plugs, adjust the carburetor, align the tires. For the most part, if I have done routine maintenance, it is ready to go!

Bottom Line: Tech should make things easier–and the tech stuff should be opaque (decidedly not transparent] since I don’t want to even have to KNOW what is going on with the tech.

ShareThis

The first that comes to mind is their GPA. Unfortunately, this is, while certainly a “quantitative” measure, it is not “objective.” It fails in at least two ways. First, it fails to consider that variations in content covered (pace, depth, breadth, etc) and also cannot account for the subjectivity and variability of the grading process itself. At best it doesn’t allow for cross set comparison (comparing students from different schools), and at worst, it fails to accurately provide any useful information.

In a selection process, one needs to be able to compare, say, Chris to Drew. If I only have one slot left, how do I determine which of the two are more likely to succeed? Let’s say for the sake of argument that both have identical GPA’s, but are from two different schools. Are both schools the same? Did they cover the same material? Did the teachers evaluate the students in the same way, asking the same questions, and grading the exams and other work in a similar, and consistent, manner? This of course, gets more complicated if, say, one of you has a slightly higher GPA. Does that indicate anything in the cross-set comparison?

As I mentioned, at worst we get very little useful information about the student. Without an in-depth knowledge of the school from which they come, and ideally the specific instructors/teachers they had, we cannot infer much by their grades. Did one instructor grade harshly, while another applied mis-directed compassion? Perhaps there was pressure from an administration to increase “graduation rates” at their school, or conversely it is possible one school had a more restrictive grading scale. It’s fairly common for one HS to grade 80-89 as a B, while another grades a B as 86-93.

I am not arguing that the SATs (or GRE, or GMAT, or MSAT, etc.) are perfect. They are not. But they at least provide some common ground upon which we can evaluate a student’s knowledge (what they have been able to learn) and assess a student’s potential (their ability to learn.)

So–barring a nation-wide attempt to standardize instruction, or even more challenging, document the experience in every classroom in the nation, how does a school effectively make useful quantitative (i.e. measurable) and objective comparisons and assessments of ability and performance?

Anyone?

ShareThis

For the four years preceding Reagan (better known as the “Carter Years”) there was a deficit run each and every year. Reagan did not inherit a Balanced budget. Not even close. I always thought it an interesting bit of history that prior to 1999, the last “balanced budget was in 1969, and that was only after “using” the Social Security surplus to balance the books.

Just thought you might want to know.

And now, having dispensed with that myth, let’s look at some other economic indicators from the Carter Era.

In addition, Reagan started with double digit inflation (12.5% for 1980), double digit interest rates (the federal reserve, or PRIME was at 13.35 in 1980), and unemployment was at a more “reasonable” 7.1% level.

So, since Drew opened this, let’s take a look, shall we, at how our current “bad economy” compares to the one Jimmy Carter handed to Reagan.

Inflation:12.5% Carter, 4.1% Bush

Prime Interest Rates: 13.35% Carter, 5.02% Bush (and have dropped more since the final ‘07 figures)

Unemployment: 7.1% Carter, 4.6% Bush

So. what lessons can we draw from this? Well, certainly we can learn that we should check facts before making statements like “Just like Reagan, Bush II has taken a balanced budget and screwed it up.”

But we should also learn from this that we should place our current economic situation in historical perspective. While we are flirting with a recession (defined as 2 consecutive quarters of “negative growth” in the GDP), we have, by many measures a strong economy. Some would argue that it is built on a deck of cards, and that all these indicators are simply castles in the sand. Perhaps. Or perhaps economies always have troubles, and challenges, and growing and declining markets.

Perhaps we have had it so good, for so long, that we lose sight of how good we still are doing today, compared to even 30 years ago.

ShareThis

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!

ShareThis

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.

ShareThis

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.

ShareThis