Is anybody listening at DOD?

Maybe it was because I had just spent $2.70 for each gallon of regular gas I bought, but I found the article, “Gas Pains” in this month’s Atlantic Monthly quite serendipitous. The author, Robert Bryce, reports on the use of fuel by our military in Iraq. Here are some numbers I found amazing:

1. 27,000 vehicles in Iraq today almost two years after the end of the war,

2. 20,000 soldiers and contractors involved in the re-fueling of these vehicle,

3. 2,000 fuel trucks leave Kuwait every day,

4. 1,700,000 millions gallons of fuel used everyday, which works out to nine gallons a day per soldier on the ground.

According to Bryce, fuel efficiency is not a concern of DOD. Yet, because of the constant need to re-fuel, the opportunities for the insurgents to attack the fuel convoys are increased.

The really sad part about this is that the Defense Science Board, a division of DOD, in 2001 issued a report on Improving Fuel Efficiency of Weapons Platforms which stressed the importance in warfare of fuel-efficient vehicles. Here are their major findings:

a) Although significant warfighting, logistics and cost benefits occur when weapons systems are made more fuel-efficient, these benefits are not valued or emphasize in the DoD requirements and acquisition process.

b) The DoD currently prices fuel based on the wholesale refinery price and does not include the cost of delivery to its customers. This prevents an end-to-end view of fuel utilization in decision-making, doe not reflect the DoD’s true fuel costs, masks energy efficient benefits, and distorts platform design choices.

c) The DoD resource and accounting processes (PPBS, DoD Comptroller) do not reward fuel efficiency or penalize inefficiency.

d) Operational and logistics wargaming of fuel requirements is not cross-linked to the Service requirements development or acquisition program processes.

e) High payoff, fuel-efficient technologies are available now to improve warfighting effectiveness in current weapon systems through retrofit and in new systems acquisition.

The article quotes the chairman of the study: “the prevailing wisdom at the Pentagon is that ‘fuel efficiency is for sissies’”.

From the little I’ve learned over the past few months, the Defense Science Board, a division of the Department of Defense, does good work. If they were actually listened to, this might be a slightly better world.

21st century Minutemen?

There’s been a lot of press about the Minuteman Project, a protest against our failure to effectively patrol our borders. It’s even been picked up by the international media. Not bad coverage for what seems to be turning out as a rather small demonstration.

Their web site tries to promote a peaceful demonstration. Yet, some of their public comments and actions lead one to question whether they have simply toned down the rhetoric on the site. For example, the co-founder, Jim Gilchrist, says of his carrying a gun, “Would you go into battle without one? That’s what the border is now.” And, this: “I can’t think of a better reason to die than the First Amendment.”

We will eventually see whether the combination of guns, fear and media attention result in people being injured or killed.

PBU14

Still true more than 3 years later

My wife was going through some old files and found a copy of an article from an issue of the New York Review of Books. It was written on September 20,2001, nine days after the attack on the Towers, by Philip Wilcox, who had served as Ambassador at Large for Counterterrorism from 1994 to 1997. Had we followed his advice, I suspect the world would be a better place today. Some quotes:

“The most important deficiency in US counterterrorism policy has been the failure to address the root causes of terrorism.”

“But the US should, for its own self-protection, expand efforts to reduce the pathology of hatred before it mutates into even greater danger.”

“The US must also realize that, notwithstanding our great power, indeed because of it, we cannot dictate respect and cooperation.”

“We should also search for ways to strengthen the common bonds between Western value and Islam to combat the notion of a ‘clash of civilizations’ and to weaken the Islamist extremist fringe that hates the West and supports terrorist actions.”

Again, until we realize that force alone will not defeat terrorism, we’ll never learn how to live according to our ideals in the 21^st century.

Where has civic responsibility gone?

Every year a week or so before town election, the League of Women Voters holds a "Candidates Night" where the voters can get some insight into the people running for office. I just read in the local paper that there will be no Candidates Night this year. No reason was given, but I suspect it's because there is only one contested office out of the fifteen or so that will be on the ballot. And that contest is for Tree Warden!

It's sad that in a town of 2000 voters we have only one person willing to challenge the incumbents, of whom I'm one. Yet, many of these same 2000 are not shy about expressing their opinions about Town matters. Why won't they run for a Town office and get a shot at making their opinions reality? Isn't that the American way? Especially in small town America, where West Tisbury us located?

China and Africa

You may not think much of Africa from an economic point of view, but last year it supplied more than 15% of our oil. It is also becoming a major player in metals, timber and other natural resources. Also, its population of 800 million is now larger than Europe’s and is predicted to exceed North America’s in the next twenty years.

Yes, on the whole Africa is still a third world continent but it’s changed more in the past forty to fifty years than at any other time. China has realized its current and future importance and has moved in in a big way. They are a major buyer of African oil; it supplies a third of their imports. They’ve sold military aircraft to Uganda. They’re building dams, bridges, power stations, highways, schools, drug plants, phone networks, etc. And a lot of the building is done by government companies that care little about earning a profit and are thus able to underbid most of the competition.

They also care little about whom they deal with. For example, Mugabe has been to China several times. They moved into Sudan when we barred our oil companies from investing there.

To improve their position in Africa they have forgiven debt from some countries and will be subsidizing 10,000 Africans who have been invited to study in China.

I’d say that China is becoming a formidable competitor in the global market and they have the added advantages of not having to make a buck nor care for human rights.

Once the GOP was a voice of reason

And former senator and current minister, John Danforth, in an article in today's NY Times gives one hope that one day it will again be known as the party that had a balanced view of the world and was able to keep religion out of politics.

Danforth laments that conservative Christians have taken over his party. He fears that the GOP will become the political extension of a religious movement. In his view the job of the government is to "hold together as one people a very diverse country". If politicians become an arm of a particular religious cause, that job becomes impossible.

A quote I really love: "As a senator, I worried every day about the size of the federal deficit. I did not spend a single minute worrying about the effect of gays on the institution of marriage. Today it seems to be the other way around."

Not Looking Good

The following is from the website of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, www.millenniumassessment.org . The BBC claims its the most comprehensive survey ever into the state of the planet and the news ain't good. A landmark study released today reveals that approximately 60 percent of the ecosystem services that support life on Earth – such as fresh water, capture fisheries, air and water regulation, and the regulation of regional climate, natural hazards and pests – are being degraded or used unsustainably. Scientists warn that the harmful consequences of this degradation could grow significantly worse in the next 50 years. “Any progress achieved in addressing the goals of poverty and hunger eradication, improved health, and environmental protection is unlikely to be sustained if most of the ecosystem services on which humanity relies continue to be degraded,” said the study, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report, conducted by 1,300 experts from 95 countries. It specifically states that the ongoing degradation of ecosystem services is a road block to the Millennium Development Goals agreed to by the world leaders at the United Nations in 2000. Although evidence remains incomplete, there is enough for the experts to warn that the ongoing degradation of 15 of the 24 ecosystem services examined is increasing the likelihood of potentially abrupt changes that will seriously affect human well-being. This includes the emergence of new diseases, sudden changes in water quality, creation of “dead zones” along the coasts, the collapse of fisheries, and shifts in regional climate. The MA Synthesis Report highlights four main findings: Humans have changed ecosystems more rapidly and extensively in the last 50 years than in any other period. This was done largely to meet rapidly growing demands for food, fresh water, timber, fiber and fuel. More land was converted to agriculture since 1945 than in the 18th and 19th centuries combined. More than half of all the synthetic nitrogen fertilizers, first made in 1913, ever used on the planet has been used since 1985. Experts say that this resulted in a substantial and largely irreversible loss in diversity of life on Earth, with some 10 to 30 percent of the mammal, bird and amphibian species currently threatened with extinction. Ecosystem changes that have contributed substantial net gains in human well-being and economic development have been achieved at growing costs in the form of degradation of other services. Only four ecosystem services have been enhanced in the last 50 years: increases in crop, livestock and aquaculture production, and increased carbon sequestration for global climate regulation. Two services – capture fisheries and fresh water – are now well beyond levels that can sustain current, much less future, demands. Experts say that these problems will substantially diminish the benefits for future generations. The degradation of ecosystem services could grow significantly worse during the first half of this century and is a barrier to achieving the UN Millennium Development Goals. In all the four plausible futures explored by the scientists, they project progress in eliminating hunger, but at far slower rates than needed to halve number of people suffering from hunger by 2015. Experts warn that changes in ecosystems such as deforestation influence the abundance of human pathogens such as malaria and cholera, as well as the risk of emergence of new diseases. Malaria, for example, accounts for 11 percent of the disease burden in Africa and had it been eliminated 35 years ago, the continent’s gross domestic product would have increased by $100 billion. The challenge of reversing the degradation of ecosystems while meeting increasing demands can be met under some scenarios involving significant policy and institutional changes. However, these changes will be large and are not currently under way. The report mentions options that exist to conserve or enhance ecosystem services that reduce negative trade-offs or that will positively impact other services. Protection of natural forests, for example, not only conserves wildlife but also supplies fresh water and reduces carbon emissions. “The over-riding conclusion of this assessment is that it lies within the power of human societies to ease the strains we are putting on the nature services of the planet, while continuing to use them to bring better living standards to all,” said the MA board of directors in a statement, “Living beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being.” “Achieving this, however, will require radical changes in the way nature is treated at every level of decision-making and new ways of cooperation between government, business and civil society. The warning signs are there for all of us to see. The future now lies in our hands.” The MA Synthesis Report also reveals that it is the world’s poorest people who suffer most from ecosystem changes. The regions facing significant problems of ecosystem degradation – sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia, some regions in Latin America, and parts of South and Southeast Asia – are also facing the greatest challenges in achieving the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals. In Sub-Saharan Africa, for example, the number of poor people is forecast to rise from 315 million in 1999 to 404 million by 2015. “Only by understanding the environment and how it works, can we make the necessary decisions to protect it. Only by valuing all our precious natural and human resources can we hope to build a sustainable future,” said Kofi Annan, secretary general of the United Nations in a message launching the MA reports. ”The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment is an unprecedented contribution to our global mission for development, sustainability and peace.” The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA) Synthesis Report is the first in a series of seven synthesis and summary reports and four technical volumes that assess the state of global ecosystems and their impact on human well-being. This report is being released together with a statement by the MA board of directors entitled “Living beyond Our Means: Natural Assets and Human Well-being.” The four-year assessment was designed by a partnership of UN agencies, international scientific organizations, and development agencies, with guidance from the private sector and civil society groups. Major funding is provided by the Global Environment Facility, the United Nations Foundation, the David and Lucile Packard Foundation, and The World Bank. The MA Secretariat is coordinated by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). The MA is recognized by governments as a mechanism to meet part of the assessment needs of four international environmental treaties – the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification, and the Convention on Migratory Species. It is supported by 22 of the world’s leading scientific bodies, including The Royal Society of the U.K. and the Third World Academy of Sciences. The MA’s work is overseen by a 45-member board of directors, co-chaired by Dr. Robert Watson, chief scientist of The World Bank, and Dr. A. H. Zakri, director of the United Nations University’s Institute of Advanced Studies. The Assessment Panel, which oversees the technical work of the MA, includes 13 of the world’s leading social and natural scientists. It is co-chaired by Angela Cropper of the Cropper Foundation, and Dr. Harold Mooney of Stanford University. Dr. Walter Reid is the director of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment.

Three bits from the Wall Street Journal

On the very day that I posted my concerns about the lack of movement by our government re oil the Journal reports that a bipartisan group of twenty-six national security officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations has written President Bush calling for a “major new initiative to curtail U.S. consumption” of oil. The group is looking for better gasoline mileage, greater support of hybrid vehicles and, surprisingly to me, support of cars that can burn ethanol. The group is going beyond the president and seeking the support of automobile manufacturers and farmers. A quote from one of the group: “We don’t have the time to wait for perfect solutions,” such as Bush’s hydrogen initiative.

The editorial page is usually quite partisan in espousing the virtues of the GOP. But, not today. They blast Tom DeLay for “betraying the broader set of principles that brought him into office, and which, if he continues as before, sooner or later will sweep him out.”

And, finally, an op-ed that is really worth reading. It’s by David Rieff. He questions the ‘utopianism’ of our efforts to transform the world. He asks for a “little proportion about Iraq”. Has Sistani, a fairly conservative cleric, used our push toward democracy primarily as a way of gaining control for the Shiites? Once that control is achieved, how will we feel about the imposition of sharia? And he points out the difficulties of using the road from Baghdad airport two years after the war’s end as well as the fact that Iraq is still importing oil.

Most importantly, he asks, “Does the lack of democracy in the world really pose the kind of threat to the US that most Americans believed the Soviet empire did during the Cold War? And even if it does, do we really have the wisdom to change the world (my emphasis), or, as President Bush has put it, to spread the peace that freedom brings?” Hubris has brought down many people and many nations. It stands a very good chance of bringing us down as well unless we take a very clear look at who we really are and whom we want to become.

All Quiet on the Energy Front

That’s in DC, now that the government has given the go-ahead to drill in the Arctic. It’s amazing to me how little the government talks about energy, let alone acting about it. Here we have a world where oil is approaching $60 a barrel; more and more reputable scientists are talking about the end of oil in this century; greenhouse gases increase daily (what will happen when China becomes as large a car-centered country as we are?); the high oil price is funding one axis of evil, Iran, and most of the ‘problem’ states.

And where does our government spend its energies? Domestically, we’re ‘starving the beast’ (while grandstanding for the life of Terri Schiavo). Internationally, we’ve dramatically strengthened the terrorists.

We fail to see that ‘To everything there is a season. A time to live, a time to die.’ Oil will not be here forever and, at the rate at which we are consuming it, will be gone much sooner than we think. Why hasn’t the government started talking and doing?

There is always hope

In January two new species of lemur were discovered in Madagascar. This month a new species of fairy shrimp was discovered in the lake bed of the Idaho desert.

Species come, species go. Perhaps, one day we will discover a new species of man who will take better care of our planet.

National Defense Strategy

The National Defense Strategy, as issued by the Defense Department, is clearly a document written by the superpower. It has many sound ideas, but I wonder how people would read this document if it were issued by a smaller country. And, as with any document written by a government agency, it espouses grand ideas which have been trampled in reality.

Let’s look at some items that would drive us up the wall if they came from Iran, for instance.

• “We will promote the security, prosperity, and freedom of action of the United States and its partners by securing access to key regions, lines of communication, and the global commons.”

• “It is unacceptable for regimes to use the principle of sovereignty as a shield behind which they claim to be free to engage in activities that pose enormous threats to their citizens, neighbors, or the rest of the international community.” Who decides what is an enormous threat? Our holding people in Guantanamo and other places could be viewed as an enormous threat to our citizens.
  

• “Our strength as a nation state will continue to be challenged by those who employ a strategy of the weak using terrorism, international fora, judicial processes, and terrorism.” Read that again. Bad guys use international fora (i.e., forums for we Anglophiles) and judicial processes. One international forum is the UN. I thought that we were a nation of laws, not of men.

Now, let’s look at the divide between the words and reality.

• “Strengthen alliances and partnerships.” Maybe the administration has gotten religion and will actually do something here to rectify the fraying of our alliances and partnerships caused by the Iraq war.

• “In Iraq, an American led effort toppled the regime of Saddam Hussein, a tyrant who used WMD…” Everything I’ve read says he did not have WMD.

• “We will have no global peer competitor…” What about a country called China?

• “We will maintain important advantages in other elements of national power – e.g., political, economic, technological, and cultural.” Do our record twin deficits help our economy? What are we doing to upgrade the math and science education of our kids; we rank far behind most advanced nations.

• “Positive developments in Iraq and Afghanistan strengthen US influence and credibility.” Are there more terrorists today than two years ago? Most rational observers would say yes.

Our brave new world

The National Association of Realtors reports that 40% of new home buyers put $0 down. In some ways, I suppose, this is good in that it allows people to own their own houses. However, some of these mortgages carry very high interest rates (e.g., 8 ½%) and I wonder how these people can carry the mortgage and still live a reasonable life. They are gambling that the housing market will continue to rise and they will eventually come out ahead.

In an era of a housing boom, might some people be better off renting? A recent newspaper article reported on the comparative decline in the costs of renting versus owning. Relying on my aging memory, in 2000 rental costs in Boston, for example, were about 80% of the costs of buying; now they’re around 55%. Investing the difference would make sense and be less risky for many of these young kids.

And I thought North Carolina was a democratic state

Many public officials in North Carolina seem to have forgotten who they work for. UNC, some municipalities and other public agencies hope to ask the state legislature to limit the freedom-of-information rights of North Carolinians, according to a report in the News & Observer. They want to be able to sue those who exert their FOI rights. This has already happened in Burlington, NC, where in 2002 the city sued a reporter who asked for the minutes of a closed hearing.

Here’s a quote from the executive director of NC’s League of Municipalities, "We need to have open government, but governments need to operate." So, although the citizens of North Carolina are paying the salaries of all government employees, they don’t have the right to ask questions of their employees? Hmm

Weekend politics

What is going on? Why do those who, for political reasons, support the re-inserting of the feeding tube into Terri Schiavo have to seek anonymity when trying to influence the Senate? During the weekend ‘debate’ about interfering in this case, an unsigned, un-attributed memo listing the ‘talking points’ of the proposed legislation was distributed on the Senate floor.

Here’s what Senator Lautenberg, Democrat from NJ, wrote about this to the Senate leadership:

“The distribution of anonymous materials on the Senate floor is troubling. There is a policy in place – at least among the Democratic conference – requiring that any materials to be distributed to Senators on the floor must bear the signature of one or more Senators. This is an important safeguard to identify the source of information and protect the integrity of such materials. Those who would attempt to influence debate in the United States Senate should not hide behind anonymous pieces of paper.”

Hold The Presses

John Snow, the Treasury Secretary, says Social Security is in worse shape than he thought. Problems will arise in 2017, not 2018 as originally thought. And the reserves will be depleted in 2041, rather than 2042. I've always admired people who can see the future in such clear terms. Such people are able to see distinctly what will happen in 12 or 37 years.

Right! And I have a bridge you can buy cheap.

Some reason rather than emotion re the Terri Schiavo case

In this article, the Columbia Journalism Review cuts through a lot of the faux tears of the politicians pontificating about this sad case. While it refers to the GOP's memo to their base exulting at this "political issue", the article goes on to talk about the Texas Futile Care Law signed by Governor George Bush. This law authorizes institutions - without getting the families okay - to remove devices such as feeding tubes when conditions similar to Ms Schiavo's are reached.

Just when did the President get religion? I thought it was before he was elected Governor.

P.S. My father is rolling over in his grave when he hears Ms Schiavo's name pronounced by the media and others. In Italian, 'ch' is pronounced as 'k'. It's pronounced Skiavo, not Shiavo.

The Perfect Way To Spend A Driving Hour

I drove my wife's car to Connecticut this weekend and, while looking through her CDs, found an album I hadn't played in a while, Susanna McCorkle's, "Most Requested Songs". I remembered why I bought it - impeccable taste and fantastic musicianship. And, I remembered when I first heard her signature song, "The Waters of March"; it was on my last trip to Canada to oversee our return to the States after eight years in the North.

The album is a mix of Brazilian songs, old favorites and songs you'll likely be hearing for the first of many times. McCorkle really makes the old favorites new; you've never heard "Thanks for the Memories" quite like this. Nor will you ever forget her rendition of "For All We Know".

This album is so beautiful you wonder why she was so despondent that she committed suicide.

Business 101

Another excerpt from Eichenwald's book on Enron:

At the end Dynegy is negotiating to acquire Enron. Hugh Tarpley, Dynegy's head of mergers and acquisitions, reviews a mountain of data supplied by Enron and sees that they are projecting earnings of $2.25 per share in 2002. He asks Enron for their 2002 business plan. The response: "We don't have a business plan available." Tarpley then asks how did they get their 2002 projections. The answer: "We just increased the prior year's results by 25%".

I think it was Fortune that named Enron the innovative company of the year for seven years running. I guess one of their innovations was the lack of common sense. Another was their lack of shame.

Is It Over?

Winter, that is.

Yesterday I drove around with my window open half-way. There is more water than ice on the surface of Olga’s Pond. They were raking out the brush at the Post Office. I didn’t need my headlights when I returned home from the Finance Committee meeting. Kids were playing without their heavy coats. Temperatures are in the 40s. People seem happier. The shovel I had broken and thrown in the snow has emerged. The snow has just about left my porch. I put my thermostat down to 60. The potholes on our dirt roads are starting to be filled in. The Red Sox open in a little over two weeks. Easter is a week away.

But – and there’s always a but with New England weather – snow is predicted for tomorrow, the first day of Spring. Not much, it’s true, but………………..

Do they have nothing better to do?

Today the Senate will conduct a hearing on the use of steroids in baseball. I guess this is a really important issue that affects the health, security, prestige and well-being of the nation.

Yesterday Cardinal Bertone inveighed against the evils found in The DaVinci Code. Perhaps, he was hired to boost the sales of the book.

The Straw?

You remember the FBI’s a few months ago dropping a software system that would have brought them into the 21^st century. Of course, this was after they had sunk a couple of hundred million into it. Would an attempt to introduce private accounts into Social Security wind up as another technical fiasco?

In general I’m in favor of private accounts as an adjunct to Social Security as we know it, but the conversion costs cannot be justified.

However, other issues have arisen. A recent Wall Street Journal article spoke of the technical and other logistical issues that private accounts would be likely to engender. One “minor” item: the SSA estimates they would need between 7,735 and 33,630 new employees just to answer the phones; and naturally these new employees would be experts on the new private accounts. There are lots more potential glitches in a move of this magnitude. It doesn’t appear to be a smart move today.

One more world penetrated

In the old days the great majority of computer software advances were made by computer programmers resident in the US or employed by US companies. Today I read of the first internationally recognized achievement of a Chinese software group: the discovery that some hash functions, used in much of internet commerce, are vulnerable. All of our worlds are changing.

A Stand-Up Guy

Harry Stonecipher was forced to resign as CEO of Boeing last week because of an affair with a female executive of the company. Unlike so many of his CEO colleagues, here's what Stonecipher said, "I violated my own standards. I used poor judgment." Rather than blame the board, he praised it for taking action when it found something inappropriate.

We all screw up. In today's world, it is the rare person who admits to doing so. Three cheers for Stonecipher.

More Accounting 101

Today's NY Times had an excerpt from Kurt Eichenwald's book on Enron, "Conspiracy of Fools". 'Fools'is an appropriate term, along with 'crooks'. When the shit hit the fan, they discovered that the accounting and finance people had no idea as to what their cash flow and debt repayments would be for the next day, week, month, year. And these people were being paid in the millions!

Again, where were the auditors in reviewing internal controls?

Still the best job around

Raise your child to be a CEO of a public company. Even if the company has to restate results for prior years (as 414 public companies had to last year), the CEO still gets to keep the bonus that was based on incorrect results. Some examples:
Time Warner restated its revenue down by $679,000,000 for the period 2000 to June 2002. The CEO received a bonus of $10,000,000.
Xerox's reported revenue was reduced by $6.4 billion for the period 1997 - 2001. The CEO kept $5,200,000.
Tyco's restated revenue was less by $90,100,000 from 1998 - 2002. The CEO's bonus was $12,500,000.

That is, the CEO received a bonus although the real results were far short of the goals needed to earn the bonus. Yes, it would cost many of these companies a lot of money to get this money back. But, Lord. where is the sense of morality and fairness on the part of these CEOs.

Welcome to Doomsday?

Bill Moyers in the latest New York Review of Books fears that the rise to influence in the federal government of the very fundamentalist Christians and very ideological partisans will result in ecological catastrophe. His reasons: they are convinced that God has given them dominion over the world and so they can do what they wish no matter the ecological cost and they will be brought to heaven when the world ends as we sinners writhe in unimaginable pain.

He goes on to list what the Bush administration has done to make this a worse place to live in. Can we do anything about it?

A Modern Woman

Fatima Yaqoub is a member of the new Iraqi government yet, among other anti-feminist ideas, she believes that husbands can have 4 wives. She is a staunch advocate of Sharia, another law promulgated by the divinity. The likely prime minister also believes in Sharia. What will our government do if the new Iraqi government becomes a theocracy?

Love Thy Neighbor

A recent study by Cornell of American attitudes towards Islam found that the 'highly religious' in our midst were somewhat less charitable than those who are 'not very religious'. Some findings:

• 42% of the highly religious (hr) believe that Muslims should register their whereabouts with the government; 15% of the not very religious (nvr) believe this.


• 34% of the hr believe that the government should monitor mosques and other Islamic gathering places; 13% of the nvr think the same.


• 40% of the hr believe that the government should infiltrate Islamic organizations; 19% of the nvr agree.

And 65% of the hr believe that Islam is more likely to encourage violence than other religions. Savonarola, Anne Hutchison, the Crusaders, etc. would agree, I'm sure.

Deficits Do Matter

Here's what Warren Buffet has to say about one of my pet peeves.

Fines? We don't need no stinking fines!

You read a lot about fairly stiff fines levied on white collar criminals. And, being reasonably good citizens, you assume that the fines will be paid. Think again!

Last year the General Accounting Office reported that $25 billion in fines and restitution owed by white collar criminals was uncollected. That's almost 30% of what Bush is asking for to fight our two wars. In 2001 the uncollected amount was only $13 billion. The amount owed you and me by these convicted felons has almost doubled in three years.

Recently the GAO studied the rate of payment in five white collar crime cases. The judge ordered the convicted to pay $568 million in restitution. Only 7% has been collected to date. Yet, the culprits are not being hounded for the money nor do they face criminal prosecution for failing to obey the court's orders.

The government doesn't have any problem hounding students for a few thousand dollars unpaid on their student loans. Yet, it can let five people owing more than a half billion off the hook.

Who's Minding The Store?

When I was studying accounting back in the Dark Ages, the professors always emphasized the importance of internal controls. Without good internal controls, they said, you really don’t have an accounting system. So, imagine my surprise on reading in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal that 500+ public companies have poor internal controls; at least that is what these companies in effect told the SEC when reporting under the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

Among the companies reporting deficient internal controls were McAfee, Inc. (what does that say about the security software they sell), SunTrust Banks, Inc. (is your money safe there?), Kodak and Toys “R” Us.

While some of these deficiencies are minor, some are not. For example, Kodak had problems with its income tax accounting. Terex had ‘imbalances’ in some accounts. Navistar did not have sufficient specialized accounting personnel.

Where were the company’s auditors?

1500 and counting

That's how many US soldiers have died so far in Iraq. Who knows how many Iraqis have also lost their lives? And what about the wounded and maimed? Who's counting them?

I know wars have been fought over people's right to rule themselves, but how many of them have been worth it? Often, the victor rules in the same way as the despot.

Slowly but inexorably

Movement on abolishing the Electoral College is slow, but there is movement. This week Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. expects to introduce a constitutional amendments to abolish the College and elect the president by a national majority vote (HJ Res. 36). And – surprise, surprise – Arnold is backing an initiative to enact nonpartisan redistricting before the 2006 elections. Perhaps, California will be the leader on this as they were on Proposition 2 1/2.

The Advantages of Being CEO

While you may be thankful that you don’t own stock in Fog Cutter Capital Corp., you may wish you were the former CEO, Andrew Wiederhorn. Mr. Wiederhorn is currently in jail for pension law and income tax felonies at a previous employer. Yet, he is being paid $5.5 million by Fog Cutter in compensation and reimbursement of his previous crimes. Plus, since he owns more than 10% of the public company’s stock, he was paid over $1 million in dividends in January. This by a company that, as of September 30, has a deficit of $123,000,000, cash of $7,000,000 and a loss for the first nine months of 2004 (the latest period shown on their web site) of almost $5,000,000.

Sometimes crime does pay.

Not a bad deal!

Another perquisite of a big time CEO: receive dividends on stock you don’t own. The Corporate Library estimates that 90% of US publicly traded companies pay their CEOs dividends on restricted stock, that is stock that has not yet been vested in accounts of these CEOs, and, therefore, not owned by them. For example, the CEO of Altria received $1,500,000 in dividends last year on his restricted stock.

Another reason why the average CEO of a public company receives 160 times the pay of the average Joe working for that company.

I find this unbelievable and have to wonder how a director could feel he is exercising his responsibilities to the shareholders.

Prescient or lucky?

Two years ago today I wrote the following to the local newspaper.

Let me see if I have my facts straight.

1. Our government wants to attack Iraq in order to prevent a possible use of nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the future.

But, Iraq does not now have nuclear weapons. North Korea, one of the axes of evil, does. Why don’t we attack them? It’s possible that Pakistan and India may go to war and use nuclear weapons. Shouldn’t we make a preemptive strike on them as the nuclear cloud may reach the United States? And, what about all those nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in the former Soviet Union? Might they not also be used against us some day in the future? Shouldn’t we eliminate that possibility now?

2. On September 11, 2001, we declared war on terrorism.

Will not a war with Iraq increase exponentially the number of potential recruits to Al Qaeda? We’ve been told that the war on terrorism is global. Will waging war against Iraq mainly on our own make it more or less likely that we will continue to receive cooperation from countries around the world, cooperation that is so vital in the battle against terrorism?

3. The estimates of waging this war approach $100 billion.
How much more will a protracted stay in Iraq after the war cost us? Yet, there has been no talk of the havoc this may wreak on our still fragile economy. Lyndon Johnson promised us guns and butter in his crusade in Vietnam. What did that do to our economy?

Add up the facts and only in George Orwell’s “1984” (where “War is Peace”) do they say this war makes sense.

I grew up in a day when Russia was supposed to attack us “very soon”. Our policy of containment eventually led to the elimination of this “very strong likelihood”. What is wrong with using such a policy against Iraq today?

An Embarassment to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts

I’m not sure where Governor Romney of my home state went to school, but it appears he did not pick up much in the way of history or the English language.

Last night in Utah he said, “America’s culture is also defined by the fact that we are a religious people.” Hmm. What about something called separation of church and state?

Then he said, “And we are also unique in that we recognize that the family is the fundamental building block of American society.” And all this time I thought that unique meant the only one of its kind. I guess my Italian cousins don’t think that the family is the fundamental building block of Italian society.

It’s amazing that this guy could even be mentioned as a possible candidate for president. He’s done diddley squat as governor. But, like Bush, he won because the Democratic candidate was weak and ran a poor campaign. When are the Democrats or some other party going to smarten up? Eventually mediocrity will sink us.

Change is in the air?

Perhaps something good may be happening in Egypt as Mubarak has asked that the constitution be amended to allow more than one candidate for president. There are a lot of details to work out and it may turn out to be just PR. But, today we can dream of a freer Egypt. Who knows but maybe tomorrow they'll start freeing some of their political prisoners?

The Almighty Euro

How much help do you give to someone who in the past has considered you an enemy and who could be your enemy one day in the future? That’s the fundamental question vis-à-vis supplying China with sophisticated weapons systems. The US says you don’t give a loaded gun to someone whose past is checkered and whose future intentions toward you are uncertain. Europe – mainly France and Germany – say you do so as his money is good and the future is far away.

I think the US is right in taking a conservative position. What say you?

A step in the right direction

I’ve spoken before about the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the federal organization that is paying pensioners of some of our bankrupt companies, such as Bethlehem Steel and Polaroid. PBGC is now paying 34,000,000 workers. Last year it ran up a deficit of twenty-billion, largely due to the companies’ under-funding their pension plans. Now, the Administration and Congress are trying to do something about this problem. They’re trying to impose a more standard form of reporting pension funds so that the example of Bethlehem Steel (which told the IRS they had enough money to cover 84% of future benefits, told their investors it was 73% and told the PBGC it was 61%) will not be repeated. And, they’re also trying to increase the amount to be paid to the PBGC by all companies with a defined-benefit plan.

It’s a good move by our government.

Perchlorate

Heck, I can hardly even spell the word. Nonetheless, there is an interesting controversy underway that has been generated by an interim EPA decision that larger (twenty-four times larger) doses of perchlorate than previously recommended are now to be considered safe.

Most of the perchlorate in this country is produced to fuel rockets and other weapons. The problem with it is that it affects the thyroid. Too much of it will change your metabolism for the worse and will severely impact the development of your kids and grandkids. The greatest concentration of perchlorate has heretofore been discovered in our water supply, particularly that near military bases and the plants that create perchlorate. It has now been found in the water supply of 35 states. It has also been found in milk and lettuce. The FDA has started looking for it in other foods.

Last week the EPA announced a new ‘reference dose’ for this substance. A reference dose is the daily exposure level thought safe for those most sensitive to a particular substance. The new reference dose for adults is twenty-four parts per billion of perchlorate in drinking water. Previously the reference dose was one part per billion.

The controversy arises because the EPA is not following the guidance of the panel that issued the report that is supposedly the basis of the EPA’s decision. That panel is called the National Research Council; it is part of the National Academy of Sciences. The chairman of the panel said that in order to translate their recommended reference dose into a drinking water limit you have to adjust the dose for an individual’s body weight and water consumption – just as you adjust doses of medicine for a particular patient’s weight. If the EPA did make this adjustment, then the recommended dose would drop from twenty-four parts per billion to four.

Cynics say that the setting of the recommended dose was influenced by the Pentagon and the defense industry as it will dramatically lower their clean-up costs. Of course, these cynics also believe in global warming, another example of doomsday science.

Sigarchi and Saminejad are in jail

The BBC has the story as to why we should be concerned not only about Messrs. Sigarchi and Saminejad but also about other Iranian bloggers.

Spending our dollars

So, If Bush’s budget passes as presented, we citizens will spend almost $200,000,000 to promote sexual abstinence in FY2006. Ignoring for the moment the question of whether the money should be spent on this program, how does one compute the financial return on this investment? I suppose the White House can trot out various reasons for making the investment, but they are very likely clouded in questions of morality, which, as we well know, is an area where reasonable people can disagree. It’s harder to disagree with the numbers, provided one agrees with the algorithm.

An article in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine prompted me to make some calculations on the financial return we are foregoing as a result of changes made in the Pell Grant regulations in 1994.

You may recall the ‘90s as a decade where we ‘got tough on crime’. One of the overlooked aspects of this policy was the denial of Pell grants to prisoners, the sentiment being why do anything for these criminals other than punish them. It didn’t matter that this policy flies in the face of just about all studies into recidivism. They’ve concluded that a college education lowers the rate of recidivism; in a few cases, the rate has gone from 35% to 1%. More typically, the rate has declined from 30% to 8%.

In 1994 there were 350 prisons offering college level courses to their inmates. Today, there are 12. Let’s assume that at each prison there are five inmates enrolled in the college program, or a total of 1690 who no longer take courses. Using a non-college recidivism rate of 30%, we’ll have 507 returning to prison. That 507 drops to 135 if we use the 8% college recidivism rate. That’s a difference of 372.

If we assume an annual cost per inmate of $25,000 (which, I think, is low), the annual cost to house these 372 is $9,295,000. If they’re in jail for three years, we’re up to $27,885,000. The cost of the Pell grants is $2000, or $3,380,000 for the 1690 inmates in the program in 1994. Multiplying this cost by a three year stay yields $10,140,000. Or, a savings of $17,745,000. I suspect that this amount (seventeen million) pales when compared with the cost of the crimes committed by those non-college inmates who return to jail.

Where would you rather spend our money? On some nebulous advertising program or on reducing the crime in this country?

Another Item from The Strategic Studies Institute

CONFERENCE REPORT
WINNING THE WAR BY WINNING THE PEACE:
STRATEGY FOR CONFLICT AND POST-CONFLICT IN THE 21st CENTURY

Fifteenth Annual Strategy Conference
Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania
April 13-15, 2004
Lloyd J. Matthews
December 2004

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The conference architecture did not provide for a canvass or survey of participants’ views on particular issues, so it is not feasible to arrive at consensus findings and recommendations. However, informal analysis of remarks by panelists and other speakers reveals such strong recurrent endorsements of some proposals that it will be
useful to highlight them. While no claim to unanimity can be made regarding these positions, it can be said that a number of participants expressed support for them in one guise or another, and that few if any voices were raised in opposition. The positions in behalf of which significant support was expressed are as follows.

• More troops are required for the war in Iraq. By a wide margin, this was the most frequently and emphatically voiced finding, often expressed in the soldier’s phrase, “We’ve got to get more boots on the ground.” In fact, many presenters spoke of the troop increase not as a need, but as a foregone conclusion: “There will be a troop increase.” And in stating this, they were not referring to Secretary Rumsfeld’s emergency increase of 20,000 soldiers announced several weeks ago.

• The date September 11, 2001, marked a historic juncture in America’s collective sense of security. Our presumption of invulnerability has been irretrievably shattered.

• We need greater international participation in the Iraqi nation-building effort, preferably under the aegis of the UN. Significantly, not a great deal was offered about how this step can now be achieved, although most participants appeared to favor greater multinational involvement.

• As soon as possible, we need to turn the reins of Iraqi government over to an indigenous entity that will be viewed as legitimate and that will have the muscle to maintain order. However, it seemed to be assumed that for an indefinite period, a Coalition troop presence would continue to be necessary in an overwatch posture, even after an Iraqi government takes formal control.

• A finding corollary to the foregoing was that the U.S. Government, under whichever political party, must summon the will to stay the course. To pull out prematurely, with Iraq still unstable, would be a catastrophe of unimaginable proportions.

• Even with some troop increases, the U.S. strategy in Iraq will continue to be a moderate, hold-the-line approach until the presidential election of November 2004. After that, decisive changes can be expected.

• The only credible institutions for mounting nation-building efforts are the Army and the Marine Corps, but even they are maladapted for such work. Faced with this dilemma, several conferees were inclined to explore the concept of constituting civil reconstruction corps (modeled after CORDS in the Vietnam War?) subordinate to the joint task force commander.

• We cannot replicate Western-style democracy and representative government in Muslim-majority states of the Middle East. This was an oft-stated theme, despite the Bush administration’s declared determination to proceed with democratization. The implication was that when we propose democracy in a state like Iraq, we are, in fact, speaking of qualified democracy, at least at the national level, with embedded structural bars to the emergence of radical Islamic rule.

• There can be no military solution in Iraq, only a political solution. This sentiment was expressed often but rarely explained. It seems to mean that the militarily victorious Coalition cannot successfully impose a reconstructed Iraqi government on the people by fiat and brute force. Rather, a successful reconstruction, i.e., one that is legitimate, viable, and appreciably democratic, can emerge only from the broadly inclusive participation and concurrence of a deliberative body representative of the country’s political, ethnic, and religious
constituencies.

• In the global war on terrorism, conclusive victory in the classic sense is probably unattainable. This sentiment was rarely expressed outright, but was implicit in the frequent use of such terms as “war of unlimited duration” and “war of uncertain outcome.” The sentiment was also present in the view of those who regarded the best attainable result as a gradual rapproachement between the haves and have nots of the world. Here, economic integration and equality, with a consequent dissipation of alienation and mutual hostility, offered the best chance of ultimately nudging the two camps to a peaceful modus vivendi.

More Threats

Yesterday our President gave us more of his ideas on bringing peace to the Middle East:

“Clearly, if I was the leader of Israel and I'd listened to some of the statements by the Iranian ayatollahs that regarded the security of my country, I'd be concerned about Iran having a nuclear weapon as well. And in that Israel is our ally, and in that we've made a very strong commitment to support Israel, we will support Israel if her security is threatened."

Strong support of Iran’s enemies and the object of hatred in the Middle East is one way to calm matters down, I suppose.

Fighting the Insurgents

“Insurgency in Iraq: A Historical Perspective” is another interesting paper from the Strategic Studies Institute, an arm of the Defense Department. It was written by Ian Beckett, who has written a couple of books on insurgencies and has taught at war colleges here and in England.

He identifies what he thinks are the essentials of successful counterinsurgency campaigns since 1945. They are:

• A recognition of the need for a political rather than a purely military response to insurgency (emphasis mine).
• A coordinated civil and military response.
• Coordination of intelligence.
• Separation of insurgents from the general population.
• Use the minimum necessary minimum force.
• Implement long-term reform to address the grievances that led to support for the insurgency in the first place.

How would you say we have done in Iraq? Looking at the list, I don’t think we’ve done very well.

Another point he makes is about the size of the security forces. In Northern Ireland it is 20 per 1000 inhabitants, in Iraq it’s 6.1 per 1000.

Do Rumsfeld and company read what their underlings are writing?

Yes, the Iraqis have voted. Yes, they are moving towards a form of democracy. But, will the insurgents be defeated? Are we winning the “hearts and minds” of the Iraqis? Was this war worth the costs to us and the Iraqis?

Some feel that Bush is riding high now because of the Iraqi and Afghanistan elections. He may be. But, like Bush’s economic policy(?), what will the costs be tomorrow?

Get thee behind me, Satan

More than fifty years ago I witnessed an exorcism in post-war Italy. A priest was exorcising the devil from a teenage girl lying on a cot in a cell in the basement of the Cathedral at Assisi. I thought then and think now that the girl must have been emotionally disturbed but, in the Italy of those days, emotional problems were in some circles considered to be the work of the devil.

Fast forward to 2003 Milwaukee. An autistic child, eight years old, was killed while the minister and members of the Faith Temple Church of the Apostolic Faith tried to exorcise the devil from the child.

And today comes news of a new class at a seminary affiliated with the Vatican: how to exorcise the devil.

The British Navy is not to be outdone as they have just authorized a sailor to be the first Satanist; he can now practice Satanic rituals while the ship is underway.

This is the 21^st century. Isn’t it?

Moving towards reality

Yesterday, Bush took the first real step towards reforming Social Security. In New Hampshire he acknowledged the possibility of raising the $90,000 cap. If he follows through on this, it will be a significant step towards resolving the problem. Let’s hope he doesn’t “forget” his statements.

Dream Worlds

Some people won’t accept reality. And the National Hockey League is a perfect example of the type of people I’m talking about. They have believed that their minor sport is really desired by the entire sports world of the US. They have failed to see that the sport’s appeal is limited, just as that of soccer has been limited in this country. As a result they invested money in undesirable markets and paid players more than they could afford.

Despite a later start in this country, soccer had a better chance of succeeding than did hockey. Most of the Gen-X sports fans played youth soccer; far fewer of them played hockey. However, the people who tried to make soccer another American staple realized the unlikelihood of succeeding and scaled things down to a financially viable level. The owners and players of the NHL have been unwilling to do so. Thus, they will not be playing in their 81^st year.

More 1984 Speak

American Jobs Creation Act – another misnomer in our 1984 world. Last Fall the Congress passed this law which, one would think, would have some specific clauses that attempted to fulfill the title of the act. Think again.

The law allows companies to bring to the US the profits they have sitting in foreign accounts and as a motivator to do so enables the companies to pay a tax of 5 ¼% on these profits instead of the more typical 35%. Since there is about $320 billion sitting in these foreign accounts, the savings for these companies amounts to almost $100 billion, or slightly more than was asked for to cover our adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq for the next several months.

To obtain these savings the companies have to approve a ‘domestic reinvestment plan’ spelling out what they intend to do with this gift. Among the more common uses: buy companies, brand building, pay down debt, pay legal liabilities. Do you see ‘job creation’ listed?

The Law and Justice

How the Catholic Church has changed since I was an altar boy! And I’m not talking about the sex scandals. NPR reported today that the Archbishop of St. Louis, Archbishop Burke, has issued an interdict to the board of St. Stanislaus parish, the leading Polish parish in the archdiocese. The next step after an interdict is excommunication; an interdict prevents one from receiving the sacraments.

From this distance it’s impossible to figure out where truth and justice lie. The web site of the archdiocese devotes a fair amount of space to making its case. Their basic argument seems to be that the church directors illegally changed the bylaws to remove the archbishop from having ultimate control. And, they’ve assembled a raft of documents, from the original agreements of 1891 to the archbishop’s letters of 2005. Frankly, they make a good case.

But then you read that the archdiocese of St. Louis, like so many others, is in the church closing mode at the same time that they are paying off the victims of the clergy sex scandal. While the archbishop says he will not sell the church property, he does want to be the only vote in controlling the church assets. The archdiocese refers to the denial by the Vatican of the church board’s petition in November as another indication of the stubbornness of the board; yet the newspapers report that the Vatican overrode the opposition of Polish bishops who supported the board.

There seems to be some legal merit on the archdiocese’s side, but the law and justice are not always the same. To me, this looks like another case of the people revolting against the centuries-old domination of the clergy. At the parish meeting the vote was 299 – 5 in favor of opposing the archdiocese.

Requiescat in Pace

You’ll read analyses of Arthur Miller’s career from many more knowledge than I. But, for someone who went to college in the ‘50s, Miller, along with Wilder and Williams, was clearly a very important playwright. I was fortunate in that most seasons at the Charles Playhouse in Boston included a Miller play. There were four that stood out in my mind and, more importantly, my soul: Death of a Salesman, The Crucible, All My Sons and View from the Bridge.

“Death of a Salesman” took on somewhat of a mystic cast when I started my own company and was out there on a wing and a prayer trying to make the sale. And, of course, the New York production (and perhaps the movie) featured Lee J. Cobb, the consummate actor for a Miller production. I never saw the Dustin Hoffman version but have the feeling that he could not have been better than Cobb.

“The Crucible” was the play for those who were opposed to the McCarthy era in America. The tribulations of John Proctor resonated with many who never had to face the difficulties of many intellectuals, including Miller, in 1950s America.

“All My Sons” and the “View from the Bridge” were lesser plays, but the View spoke to many who, as we aged in a new country, tried to recapture something they never had.

Will we remember Miller’s other plays? I think not.

Would Miller have become as famous had he not married Marilyn? Some would say no, but Miller was as much a star in his field as DiMaggio was in his. And, in the world of the playwright in the third quarter of the 20^th century Miller was as much a star as Joe DiMaggio in the world of baseball.

What planet is the federal government on?

When I worked, all the budgets we created took into account possible revenue as well as likely costs. As treasurer of a non-profit, my budget considers possible revenue as well as likely costs. As a member of the town finance committee, I always have in mind the town’s tax base as we review the town’s expense and capital budgets. That is, any sensible person considers both revenue and expense when making financial plans. Why doesn’t our federal government?

In both the profit and non-profit worlds I have no real control over the revenue that will come in; I can do things that increase the likelihood of our revenue goals being met, but I can’t guarantee it. The town has the power to increase revenue by raising taxes or fees and, as a taxpayer, I have to pay my taxes.

Why has there been so little mention of the revenue side of the federal financial position by the administration? They have so much more control over revenue than any non-governmental entity. This country does not exist solely to wage war. We are a country for the mutual benefit of all our citizens.

June 10, 1963

I came across these words of John Kennedy.

"What kind of peace do I mean? What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children - not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women - not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."

Not a word about the form of government of nations at peace nor a paean to America. Quite a contrast to what is said now.

Another New England Triumph

It was a lot closer game than most had expected. The Patriots won because they were better coached in what to do in the waning moments of close games. Philadelphia did not know how to use time. They took too long getting back to the huddle. They did not get out of bounds when they could have. They caught passes at the scrimmage line when there was no hope of any sort of return. They couldn’t operate without a huddle.

Had they made better use of their last 2+ minutes, there may have been a different result.

Starve the beast

Today’s NY Times claims to have some details on the federal budget to be proposed by Bush, whose goal is to keep the budget growth less than the rate of inflation. Translated that means cuts. Cuts that is for most departments but not the Pentagon; they get a 4.8% raise, not counting the costs of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Discretionary spending at Health and Human Services is cut by 2.4%. Yet, the programs promoting sexual abstinence will get a boost of 25% at the same time the Low Income Energy Assistance Program will be cut by 8.4% (How much did you pay for your last gallon of oil?).

I ask again. Wouldn’t Bush’s tax cuts have paid for these programs? Where are this country’s values?

Comparisons

I really don’t want to be seen as someone who knocks his country. But, at the same time, I believe in facing reality. Here are some comparisons between the US and other countries that concern me:

• Europe has 87 prisoners per 100,000 people, US has 685.
• According to the World Health Organization the US is the largest spender per capita on health care but ranks 37^th in quality of service.
• In GDP per hour the US ranks behind Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway, Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany and France.
• Per the OECD, one American adult in five is in poverty, one in fifteen in Italy.
• The EU gave away $36.5 billion in development aid in 2003, the US gave $12 billion.
• Each American lets 20 metric tons of carbon dioxide into the air each year. Each European exhausts nine.

Do these comparisons concern you?

1984 anyone?

It’s been a while since I read ‘1984’ by Orwell. But, the inability to escape the regime’s propaganda – except for a glitch that enabled Winston Smith to do so - stuck in my mind. I know that Orwell was quite prescient (e.g. the “war is peace” gobbledygook of the present administration), but I was surprised to learn that in North Korea every home has a speaker that spouts the regime’s ideas from morning to night.

And there are other ‘quirks’ in this member of the axis of evil:

• Foreigners riding the main railway can’t see the countryside as there are high walls preventing this.
• Entire families have been slaughtered because one member maligned the Leader.
• Kim Il Sung, who is dead, was named perpetual president.
• The few churches that were left open were staffed with actors whose job is to greet foreign visitors and talk about the regime’s tolerance.

Ritalin is not always a blessing

Very interesting article in today’s Wall Street Journal discussing the impact of Ritalin and similar drugs on creativity. The article asks whether the efforts to control kids with ADHD will prove to limit the creativity of these kids when they become adults. The article by Jeffrey Zaslow quotes from “The Gift of ADHD” by Lara Honos-Webb: “a person who focuses better taking Ritalin can be like a horse with blinders, plodding along. He’s moving forward, getting things done, but he’s less open to inspiration”.

William Pollack of Harvard Medical School feels that too many kids are given the drugs with only cursory evaluations. Certainly, in some cases, kids need to be tranquilized. But in many cases the tranquilization is done to make the kid conform or to ease the parent’s role. Some people were not born to be conformists; we need them in the world. Some people need to learn that being a parent is not an easy task; drugs are not always beneficial even if prescribed by a doctor.

I Solemnly Swear

In 2002 the president pledged to increase funding to combat world poverty to $5 billion a year starting in FY2006. FY2006 is around the corner and now the tune is $3 billion.

In the 2003 State of the Union address the president said he would increase AIDS funding by $10 billion over the following five years. To do so, he would have to appropriate $6.4 billion over the next two years as he has only asked for an additional $3.6 billion thus far.

In 2004 the president signed a bill authorizing 2000 new Border Patrol agents. It would be nice if he also authorized the funds to pay for these agents.

And still his tax cut should be made permanent. Make sense to you?

State of the Union: February 2005

I really can’t stand to watch State of the Union messages. The repeated rising and applause is ridiculous. But, supposedly, the speech outlines the president’s aims for the coming year(s) and, in theory, lets him give his opinion of where the country stands today. So, last night while President Bush was speaking, I went to the White House web site and read a summary of the speech. Yes, there were a lot of platitudes, some noble aspirations, maybe a good idea or two. But did it give a reasonably true picture of where the country is today. You be the judge.

The assertion: Over the last four years, Americans have come together to overcome great challenges.
My take: In my 67 years I have never seen the country so divided.

The assertion: We opened new markets abroad.
My take: Our trade deficit is the highest ever.

The assertion: We created 2.3 million jobs over the past four years.
My take: I guess it depends on how you define ‘creation’. The 2.3 million is very close to the number of jobs lost in the first three plus years of this administration. Only the Hoover administration lost more jobs.

The assertion: The budget reflects the country’s priorities of ensuring economic growth and fighting the War on Terror.
My take: I guess record trade deficits, record fiscal deficits, a weak dollar, rising outsourcing, the emergence of China and India as global economic powers equate to economic growth. Just like the colored alert system and taking off your shoes at the airport lead to a safer country.

The assertion: Tax relief must be made permanent.
My take: That way any social service programs can go down the tube.

The assertion: The President’s plan will reduce the rising cost of health care.
My take: Just as the Medicare prescription drug benefit will reduce the cost of health care for some individuals while making the entire Medicare system less tenable.

The assertion: His plan encourages conservation.
My take: This is the first time I’ve heard him mention the word.

The assertion: His plan encourages alternative sources of energy, including hydrogen-fuel, clean coal and ethanol.
My take: What about ‘fuels’ such as sun and wind?

The assertion: Taxpayers spend six billion hours every year on paperwork and other headaches.
My take: Divide the six billion by the population of 300,000,000 and you get twenty hours per person. Is that too much time away from the tube? How many people actually spend as many as twenty hours?

The assertion: Re Social Security, we must not jeopardize our economic strength by raising payroll taxes.
My take: We’ll just borrow the money and add to the record deficit that will eventually kill us if we don’t take steps now.

The assertion: We’ll improve state criminal justice systems.
My take: What happened to the separation of state governments from the federal government?

The assertion: Taking the fight to the enemy – with the essential help of our allies – has made America safer.
My take: Would there be more or fewer terrorists today if we had not attacked Iraq? Would the attack have had greater legitimacy if we had our allies, France and Germany, with us?

The assertion: In partnership with nations of the broader Middle East, the President is advancing political, social, and economic reforms in the region.
My take: Isn’t this butting in on the affairs of supposedly sovereign nations, some of whom are our allies?

What is net income?

When I was in the software business, Computer Associates (CA) had a nasty reputation of providing little or no service to the customers of those companies it had acquired. It made a lot of short term money doing this. Recent years – and lawsuits alleging financial chicanery - have demonstrated the foolishness of this approach, which was rather atypical.

But, it does keep its books like many large and small companies of today do. The headline in the January 26 edition of the Wall Street Journal reads CA net doubles, helped by acquisition and currency. The headline does suggest some doubt should be cast on the “doubling” of net. Reading further, one sees that the so-called “net” income did not include one-time events and amortization of costs related to past acquisitions. When did the definition of net income change? When I was younger the only question you had was whether it was net before or after income taxes.

Another Good Op-Ed from Wall Street Journal

Eliot Cohen, Professor at the Nitze School at Hopkins, asks us to look at our failures as well as our successes relative to Iraq and, most importantly, to acknowledge in clear language the fact that we have failed and we have succeeded. He asks us to “honor the 8,000 families of dead and wounded American soldiers by facing the unpleasant truths, because even if blunders characterize all wars, blunders they remain”.

A basic management principle: the first step is fixing a problem is to recognize it. It would be nice is our country adopted it.

China again!

China has now surpassed the US as Japan’s largest trading partner. Their 22.2 trillion yen in trade with Japan was about 10% larger than that of the US (20.48 trillion yen). Both imports and exports from China grew more than 15%, while Japan exported 2.3% more to us in 2004 than 2003 and imported 1% less from us. Step by step. Country by country.

The Hazards of Winter

Our 89 year old neighbor had quite an interesting 24 hours. It began with an oil truck being unable to make a delivery because her driveway had not been plowed. Amazingly, we were able to get the plow person to remove the snow so that the oil truck could supply her with oil the same day.

Later that day another neighbor went to shovel her walkway. He smelled oil and, sure enough, the tank was leaking. During his investigation in the cellar, he noticed a water leak. Putting his finger in the oil tank ala the Dutch boy and the dike, he was able to call my handyman wife. After checking things out, my wife called the Town and, lo and behold, a short while later the Fire Chief, the Health Agent and a Policeman came to our neighbor’s house. They were able to stem the oil leak and, mirabile dictu, convince a very stubborn old lady to spend the night elsewhere, namely my house.

In the meantime our shoveling neighbor stayed at his post until the oil company people came and pumped the oil tank into barrels. First thing this morning, he called a plumber and waited while the water leak was fixed. This is all done while he should have been tending to his paying customers, as, of course, his time was a gift to the old lady. Then, he took here home. However, he will be returning every few days to move the heater line from one barrel to the next until all the barrels are used and a new oil tank can be brought in.

It was good to see a variety of people working without compensation to help someone in real need.

Am I Callous?

Increasing the death benefit to our soldiers is long overdue. It’s one of those ideas about which all of our politicians will wax eloquent. Yet, it’s another case of not thinking through the costs of this really good idea.

The cost for the casualties to date in Iraq alone is about $350,000,000. A drop in the bucket surely. But it’s something that should be funded without taking funds away from another equally deserving idea. It’s just another reason not to make the Bush tax cuts permanent.