Blogging for Fun & Profit

Recently, some friends asked me about learning to blog. I started at Blogger.com back in 2004, and started a second blog last year using Blogger tools that's hosted on one of my own domains. Wordpress.com is another popular platform where you can start blogging for free.

Blogging can be a very individual art form. Some people just post one-liners like Instapundit, while others go in for long-form essays based on a particular field of expertise such as Dr. Sanity. Betsy's Page is another good example; she has enough traffic that a) she has to pay for her bandwidth, and b) ad revenue helps. Some people like Instapundit and the Anchoress moved from their original (growing) blog to find a new blog home as part of a larger enterprise site.

There are group blogs such as The Corner at National Review, where they keep a lively conversation going about current events (it helps that they're all professional writers). Powerline is another popular group blog. WattsUpWithThat has become a very popular blog, posting lots of technical papers and articles about weather and climate science; the comments are an education in themselves. "Hockey stick observed in NOAA ice core data" is worth a read ;-)

How do people find blogs? They start by word of mouth, seeing a reference or hyperlink online, or in an email. One way to promote your blog is to comment on other blogs and link back to relevant content on your own (a "trackback"). Another technique is to post an article to a site like Ezine Articles and include a link back to your site and/or blog. Some of my traffic comes from people doing Google searches.

Many blogs have a list on the side with links to their favorite or allied blogs; this is known as a blogroll. Lucianne.com just started a new site, Blogs Lucianne Loves, to highlight stories from selected blogs rather than main-stream media (MSM) as on her original site.

Blogging is one way to build content for your business website. One of the functions of blogs is to let your readers know not only what you're expert at, but what info you find valuable (or bogus) elsewhere on the internet. That's why you'll see lots of hyperlinks in people's articles, especially on opinion sites. The downside to linking elsewhere is that people leave your site. But if they find the content valuable and you keep it fresh, they'll keep coming back for more.

Perry Marshall is a good example of the business-focused blogger, which makes sense since his business is coaching people how to use Google AdWords and other internet marketing techniques. Ed Dale, another internet marketing guru, uses Twitter and Facebook to link people back to his blog or other interesting sites.

There are other tools available for bloggers. I use StatCounter.com to track my blog traffic, so I can see statistics such as what my visitors are reading, what countries they're from, what browser and operating system they're using, and whether they've visited more than once recently. I also use HaloScan for comments and trackbacks. Since I have light traffic, Blogger.com, StatCounter.com, and HaloScan are all freebies. These aren't the only ones by any means. I have a widget to link to my own Twitter feed on both blogs, and Real Simple Syndication (RSS) is also enabled.

One of the reasons I started blogging was because I found myself writing too many link-laden emails to family and friends during election season! By blogging, I've reached readers from around the world :-)

Pyramids made of artificial stone?

Interesting story about geopolymers at Wired.com:

Professor Davidovits was awarded the French Ordre National du Mérite, and is President of the Geopolymer Institute. His most remarkable claim is that the pyramids were built using re-agglomerated stone, a sort of geopolymer limestone concrete, rather than blocks of natural stone. This would explain many of the mysteries of pyramid construction. Handling barrels of liquid concrete and casting in place would be much easier than moving giant blocks of stone. Remarkably, recent X-ray and microscopic study of samples has supported the theory that the pyramids are made of artificial stone.

(h/t Lucianne.com)

Think & Grow Rich!

Would you like a nearly-free* copy of the book that changed Bob Proctor's life?

Bob Proctor, you may recall, is one of the teachers featured in "The Secret" DVD. I've had the privilege of hearing him in person -- and getting a hug from him too!

Bob's been carrying around the same copy of "Think and Grow Rich" by Napoleon Hill since 1963. He quotes from it frequently in his personal achievement seminars. It helped him go from being a fire-fighter making $4000/year (and $6000 in debt) to making more than $1,000,000 two years later as an entrepreneur!

My friends Vic and Lisa Johnson are doing this crazy marketing test where they're giving away a hard copy of Napoleon Hill's "Think & Grow Rich."

I'm helping them with their big giveaway and wanted to make sure you got your copy before they take this offer down.

Get the details here: www.FreeTGRbook.com/Tesseract or follow the link in the ad on the right.

Feel free to pass this on to friends. They can get one too if they act right away.

This is one of my favorite books. I know you'll love it!


*Well, the book is free, you just pay a nominal shipping & handling charge.

The Expectations Gap

Over at Pajamas Media, Michael S. Malone comments on T-Mobile losing all their customer's Sidekick data October 1st:

The vehemence and paranoia of some of these rumors only underscored what was the single unassailable truth about this episode: that the Sidekick’s one million users had a deep emotional (and often financial) investment in the device . . .and that loyalty had been betrayed.

[...] we have a dangerous gap between consumers’ expectations and what the supplier believes it is obliged to deliver. In this case, Sidekick users expected the data they put on their devices to send to some safe place in the computing cloud where it would always be protected as part of the contract with Microsoft and T-Mobile. Apparently, those two companies thought differently; that their job was to provide the highest quality product and service possible, and to make a good effort to keep customer data secure – and effort that, it seems, did not include creating redundancies and back-up files.

For new products and services, customer expectations are often driven by marketing hype, not the fine print in the contracts. This happens in defense contracting too, when program managers (both government and contractor) tout the benefits to the sponsors, Congress, and the warfighters while glossing over the limitations or technical challenges in the way.

Customers, of course, can always make assumptions about how a product should operate that were never imagined by the marketers or engineers in their wildest dreams. But the Sidekick episode would seem to be a case where the T-Mobile and Microsoft professionals should have been able to put themselves in their customer's shoes.

Systems engineers and their testing brethren need to work with the marketers throughout the development project to understand the end-users' expectations about the product's capabilities. And then work to ensure those expectations will be met -- or the marketing approach modified.

Customer trust and loyalty, once lost, is very hard to regain. Windows 7, anyone?

Townhall questions for my Congressman

Here's the text of an email I just sent my Congressman, who's a Democrat. He's holding a Townhall meeting tomorrow evening.

Congressman,

I regret that I'll miss your townhall meeting due to a prior engagement. However, I'm interested in getting the answers to a three questions.

1. President Obama has made a lot of promises about "Obamacare". Why would you support legislation such as HR3200 that fulfills none of the President's promises due to perverse incentives?

2. Why in the world would Medicare continue to be a separate program once we achieve universal coverage? It doesn't make sense to mandate that citizens reaching a certain age must change their healthcare plans if they already like their existing coverage.

3. Will you pledge to read the healthcare bill before you vote on it?


Thank you for your service.

I'll be curious to see if I get a response other than a form letter.

Stop Waxman-Markey!

Speaker Pelosi has scheduled the Waxman-Markey Bill for a vote this week, even though the ink is barely dry on it. The bill is formally known as H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Politico reports, "House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) has overcome one of the last big obstacles standing in the path of his landmark climate-change bill, cutting a deal with Agriculture Committee Chairman Collin Peterson, who sought greater protections in the bill for farmers and other rural interests. Their agreement sets the stage for a vote Friday in the House." (h/t Lucianne.com)

The Competitive Enterprise Institute is one of the organizations campaigning against the bill:
"We urge that voters contact their Representative immediately by calling the House switchboard at (202) 225-3121. Tell your Representative to vote No on H. R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act. Voters may also send their Member an e-mail by going to www.cei.org/1984 and clicking on the link to the action page."

Why do I object to this legislation? Basically, it does nothing to solve the problems it's ostensibly written for, but will inflict huge costs on our country. Whether you believe or not that humans and greenhouse gases (e.g. CO2) will lead to further climate warming, this is a terrible bill.

1. As Hugh Hewitt noted on his radio show this evening, it's not designed to solve global warming, it's designed to raise revenue. Over at MasterResource.org, Chip Knappenberger writes:

Without a large reduction in the carbon dioxide emissions from both China and India—not just a commitment but an actual reduction—there will be nothing climatologically gained from any restrictions on U.S. emissions, regardless whether they come about from the Waxman-Markey bill (or other cap-and-trade proposals), from a direct carbon tax, or through some EPA regulations.

2. The energy taxes will raise prices throughout the economy. Remember $4.00 gasoline? A few years from now that may seem awfully cheap! Many people argue that gas should be at least $10/gallon to "properly" account for its alleged environmental costs. Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Motors is just the latest example. But this legislation also hits coal and natural gas, which together provide about 70% of our electric supply if my math is right. (Data from Energy Information Administration) So electric cars won't be a bargain either. Naturally, that's made some House member nervous. PlanetGore has background on some of the horse trading here and here.

3. Because of price inflation, economic output (GDP) will less than it would be without the energy taxes. Heritage Foundation has run the numbers and they are staggering:

Higher energy costs create a significantly slower economy and reduce America’s growth potential. Heritage analysis finds that by 2035, a projected 2.5 million jobs are lost below the baseline (without a cap and trade bill). The average Gross Domestic Product (GDP) lost is $393 billion, hitting a high of $662 billion in 2035. The negative economic impacts accumulate, and the national debt is no exception. The increase in family-of-four debt, solely because of Waxman-Markey, hits an almost unbelievable $114,915 by 2035.

4. If you're concerned about our dependence on foreign oil, it would make more sense to encourage development of domestic sources even as alternative sources emerge from the R&D phase over the next couple of decades. But this bill does nothing to encourage domestic production or otherwise increase supply.

Newt Gingrich now heads up American Solutions. They have lots more information and an online petition I've signed:

http://www.americansolutions.com/take-action/petition/index3.php

Tell your Congressional Representative to vote NO and spread the word to your friends. We can't afford this bill.

Posted on both RareKate Writes and Thwarting Murphy blogs.

Craving Clarity in Policy Debates

Rabbi Yonason Goldson writes about "The Language of Confusion":

In his essay "The Principles of Newspeak," the appendix to his classic novel, 1984 (published 60 years ago this month), George Orwell describes how the leaders of his totalitarian future have contrived to assure their hold on power by replacing English with Newspeak, a language containing no vocabulary for concepts contrary to the platform of the state-run Party. By controlling language, the Party controls its people's very thoughts.

Intuition suggests that language is a product of thought: if we think clearly, automatically we will speak clearly. Orwell demonstrates the opposite, that thought is a product of language. Because we formulate our thoughts in words and sentences, incompetent use of language guarantees muddled thinking. If there are no words for rebellion, uprising, or discontent people will find it difficult to formulate and articulate the concept of overthrowing even the most corrupt and oppressive government.

Marketers talk about how to "reframe" a problem so the customer will think about it in a different fashion. For example, when showing a house in the country, the potential buyers might be worried about the long commute. A smart real estate agent will soon have them thinking cheery thoughts about being close to nature instead, diverting their attention from one of their reasons for not buying.

C. Edmund Wright lays out the word game underlying the so-called health care legislative push, where "health care" is conflated with "health insurance":

The confusion between "health care" and "health insurance" as public policy issues -- along with the near universal misunderstanding of what health insurance is (or should be) -- is making what should be a rather simple financial planning market solution a national nightmare.

Moreover, the nuanced difference in the language used has turned the issue much more emotional and much less rational, politically. We say we must reform the system to prevent families from going bankrupt over medical bills, then turn around and debate systems that micro-manage the costs of pills and routine check ups. Well, which do we really want to do? Those are entirely different issues.

The problem begins with the almost universal misapplication of the terms. Health insurance does not insure your health, nor was it ever intended to. Health care insurance, formerly called "medical insurance," is merely an instrument of neutralizing risk. Financial risk, that is.

Meanwhile, Hugh Hewitt blows the whistle on the rebranding effort on Capitol Hill:

The Obama/Pelosi/Reid push to take over and nationalize health insurance via the so-called "government option" has received a face-lift this week, with many advocates of the takeover now calling it the "public option," which sounds less intrusive. No matter what you call it, the "government/public option" will destroy private sector insurance very soon after it passes and will push tens of millions of employed and covered Americans from the insurance plans they currently own (and generally like) into the sprawling, top-down, rationing-on-the-sly plan that is just Medicare on steroids, a "public option" that will be just as broke and just as oppressive when it comes to intensive treatment of difficult diseases and conditions as medicare is.

Unless our public policy debates can achieve clarity on exactly what the problems are before trying to craft solutions, the politicians and their staffs will continue to write legislation that promises much but comes with huge costs and unintended adverse consequences like the "stimulus" bill. Kevin Glass blogs:

Preliminary results from Barack Obama's stimulus are coming in. The news is not good.

Four months on from Barack Obama's stimulus package, we're seeing an explosion of analysis of what's actually been happening to the hundreds of billions of taxpayer money being doled out.

Recovery.org has been doing a great job tracking where stimulus money is going and for what, and has worked as a non-partisan alternative counter to the Obama administration's propaganda website Recovery.gov. Recovery.org has a handy and detailed list that includes a list of "most recent" stimulus projects, "most expensive" projects, and what Americans are saying. It's an invaluable and unbiased resource for Americans concerned with Obama's spending projects.

The Reason Foundation has just released the "Taxpayer's Guide to the Stimulus." The guide breaks down stimulus spending by category, department and project. Their findings are depressing.

Rushing bills through Congress is not the answer! David Harsanyi opines in the Denver Post (h/t Corner):

Weren't we promised some methodical and deliberate governance from President Barack Obama? Where is it?

The president claims that we must pass a government-run health insurance program — possibly the most wide-ranging and intricate government undertaking in decades — yesterday or a "ticking time bomb" will explode.

If all this terrifying talk sounds familiar, it might be because the president applies the same fear-infused vocabulary to nearly all his hard-to-defend policy positions. You'll remember the stimulus plan had to be passed without a second's delay or we would see 8.7 percent unemployment. We're almost at 10.

Ahem.

Tying a Gordian Knot

In Greek mythology, the Gordian Knot was infamous for being so complex that it was impossible to untie. (Alexander the Great "solved" the knotty problem by cutting it with a sword.)

Nowadays, our fearless leaders on Capitol Hill seem intent on creating their own masterpieces of knotty complexity that many conservatives fear will be impossible to undo once implemented, just like Medicare. But that's not stopping Congressional solons from trying, even if no constituent group wants their "cures". From The Hill:

The cost of [health care] reform and how to pay for it dominated the discussion Tuesday as Democrats were forced to respond to an unfavorable Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analysis of one incomplete part of an incomplete bill.

The CBO looked at one portion of a draft bill written by the Senate HELP Committee and found, among other things, that it would cost more than $1 trillion while providing a net decrease in the number of uninsured people of 16 million.

The CBO also threw cold water on a promise by a coalition of healthcare industry groups to reduce healthcare spending by $2 trillion over 10 years. Obama announced their promise to much fanfare, but the CBO found that while a few of the cost-cutting measures would save money, others would cost money. In sum, they would not have a big impact on federal spending, the CBO concluded.

Or consider the proposed financial regulation reform. Larry Kudlow writes at The Corner:

The Fed in Charge of Systemic Risk? What a Mess [Larry Kudlow]

The big winner of the Obama financial-regulation plan appears to be the Federal Reserve, which becomes the consolidated supervisor of large, systemically important banks.

This is like the fox guarding the henhouse. After all, the Fed’s overly loose money policies created the asset bubble — including housing, commodities, and energy — in the first place. Near-zero interest rates, huge money growth, and total disregard for the plunging dollar are what set up the housing boom and the unfortunate overleveraging by consumers, mortgage borrowers, and Wall Street securitizers.

It also set up the astronomical $150 oil shock, which came alongside the Fed’s overly tight money policies to offset the prior loose policies that would cause this credit crunch and deep recession. In fact, looking back to the last two bubbles — the tech bubble of 1999-2000 and the housing/energy bubble after that — it was the Fed’s pillar-to-post go-stop-go-stop lurches that deserve the principal blame for the economic messes that ensued.

If mismanaging economic policy doesn't make you nervous, how about the Waxman-Markey environmental legislation being written? From Steve Haywood at Planet Gore:

May the Farce Be With You [Steve Hayward]

While most of us are concentrating our fire on the costs and bureaucracy that Waxman-Markey entails, no one has noticed one salient political fact: Had the Bush administration and the GOP Congress proposed the current language back in, say, 2005, all of the leading green groups would have vehemently opposed it as an ineffective sellout to corporate interests. (See, for example, the latest estimate from the Breakthrough Institute that Waxman-Markey will only reduce GHG emissions by about 0.5 percent by 2020.) But the greens are so in-the-bag for Obama and Pelosi, and so desperate to pass something — anything — before Copenhagen in December, that they're willing to become shameless hypocrites.

And Paul Driessen warns in an IBD Editorial Op-Ed:

If the pending Waxman-Markey energy and climate bill (HR 2454) becomes law, utility bills will soar. Farm and business energy costs will skyrocket — and be passed on to consumers, or defrayed by layoffs. Everything Americans grow, make, buy and do will be far pricier. And bureaucrats will control our lives.

Compared to no cap-and-tax regime, Waxman-Markey would cost the United States a cumulative $9.6 trillion in real GDP losses by 2035, concludes a study by the Heritage Foundation's Center for Data Analysis. The bill would also cause an additional 1.1 million job losses each year, raise electricity rates 90% after adjusting for inflation, provoke a 74% hike in inflation-adjusted gasoline prices, and add $1,500 to the average family's annual energy bill, says Heritage.

[Heritage's report is here.]

Fortunately, some members of Congress are interested in untying some of the existing Federal Gordian Knot. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) blogs about the newly-formed Sunset Caucus:

The Sunset Caucus is designed to shrink our ballooning government budget by eliminating federal programs, offices, and agencies that are duplicative or obsolete.

As Ronald Reagan once said, “a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth.”

As a member of the Sunset Caucus, I will select some program or agency that has outlived its usefulness, duplicates other government programs or that Congress never had any business creating in the first place. The fight for the taxpayers has to start somewhere.

The average federal program duplicates five other programs. For example, there are about 60 separate welfare programs, approximately 160 job training programs, and over 300 economic development programs. When American families are struggling to make ends meet, Congress should be looking for ways to tighten the government’s belt too, and this is a good place to start.

If we can’t make the easy decision to cut this kind of wasteful spending, is it is any wonder the American people are doubtful of Washington’s intentions to make the so-called “difficult choices.”

Break out the swords!

Space Poop

One of the challenges a designer should think about is that the real end-user may not fit the assumptions. Take the toilets on the International Space Station, for instance. From Pravda:

Until recently, Russian cosmonauts and US astronauts did not distinguish between their toilets and used the one that was closer. However, the food, which space researchers eat, differs greatly. The Russian space food is more savoury, more natural and more diverse, which US astronauts acknowledge too.

The menu of the Russian crew has over 300 dishes. Here is the daily menu of Valery Korzun, the commander:

Breakfast: curds and nuts, mashed potatoes with nuts, apple-quince chip sticks, sugarless coffee and vitamins.

Lunch: jellied pike perch, borsch with meat, goulash with buckwheat, bread, black currant juice, sugarless tea.

Supper: rice and meat, broccoli and cheese, nuts, tea with sugar.

Second supper: dried beef, cashew nuts, peaches, grape juice.

It just so happens that the consistency of fecal matter turns out to be rather thick against the background of such a diet.

The menu of US astronauts is nutritious as well, but it looks more like a diet ration and presumably consists of exotic fruit, vegetables, sea food and low-fat meat. That is why, their waste is much softer. Engineers took account of these peculiarities when designing the sewage system for the ISS. It just so happens that the solid Russian waste ruined the US toilets in space.

The astronauts were sick and tired of toilet breakdowns and unpleasant odors. NASA was eventually forced to order a toilet system from Russia. US tax payers paid $19 million for the space toilet. The new construction was installed in the US department of the ISS.

(H/T The Corner)

I don't really care if the story is completely factual or not. The fact remains that end-users seldom care about the design specs, and will find novel ways to use and abuse products over time.

Cross-posted at Thwarting Murphy.

Pixie dust and magic wands

[Editor's note: Compuserve is closing down its OurWorld website hosting after many years. So I decided to resurrect some articles I had online there. This one dates from 1994. Not much has changed about organizational behavior in the intervening 15 years.]

***************************

Fads and why they fail.

Lots of management theories have come and gone during the past century. When I was a supervisor at Ohio Bell in the late '70s, Management by Objectives was the hot theory that would solve all the company's ills, reduce labor strife, and guarantee that we focused on the important issues. Nowadays, MBO is old hat (even if recycled in The One Minute Manager) and Total Quality Management (TQM) books fight for shelf space with those for re-engineering corporations, reinventing government, activity-based costing (ABC), teaming, zero defects, and learning organizations.

Why do managers keep seeking the Holy Grail of management theory? Because the last technique no longer works, if it ever did. Managers understand that insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results. The logical conclusion, then, is that something else is needed. What managers seldom look at, though, is the way they seek to implement change.

Most management books are written for upper management, who are viewed as the ones who can direct change to occur within their organizations. They're also the ones who have the budgets to hire the consultants who write the books. The result of this focus is a top-down approach to creating change.

In the usual top-down approach, management become the cheerleaders for the new paradigm that will save their collective skins. They ensure that people get training in the new techniques. They lead very visible large-scale efforts that require lots of studies, lots of time, and lots of consultants and facilitators. Sometimes, they get lucky and get the results they want. More times, they don't.

The problem is that the fad du jour is treated like pixie dust or a magic wand. You wave it over the organization and wait for the magic to happen by itself. Yet substantial change only happens when people throughout the organization buy into, understand, and apply the prescribed theory. Change has to happen at the grass roots as well as at the top.

How you go about creating change is as at least as important as the change itself.

Stephen Covey tells us that creating new habits requires mastering the new skills, knowing when to use them, and having the desire to do so. Creating organizational change is akin to creating new corporate habits: the same rules apply. The management theories tell you what to accomplish, what skills you need to master. They seldom tell you how to get there.

Knowing and doing are two different things.

My boss and I were returning from yet another TQM training class when he bemoaned, "You know, TQM is a great theory. I just wish I knew how to apply it!"

We were liberally dosed with pixie dust. We learned a lot about TQM—except for the most important lesson of all: learning how to use it in the real world! Supervisors had "incentives" written into their performance plans (i.e. MBO) declaring that they would promote the use of TQM. Top management sported buttons showing an inverted organizational pyramid, declaring that they were there to support the front line people at the "top". People in the organization could truthfully say that they were aware of TQM, and that management generally promoted its use. But no one ever asked them if they were finding applications, integrating the TQM philosophy into their daily work.

There were some success stories. The most notable was the effort to revamp the entire process for submitting travel requests and processing the claims for reimbursement. This was a large project that involved several organizations. The head of the effort was our executive officer, someone with enough clout to authorize the changes once the new system was designed.

But there were also horror stories. One "Process Action Team" was so gung-ho that they dared to implement changes, without getting a by-your-leave from the department head first. He fully supported their studying the processes in the department, but taking action was another matter. The Process Action Team became a Process Study Team. Oddly enough, enthusiasm for TQM dropped sharply. The pattern repeated in other departments.

The department head knew about TQM. But he hadn't figured out how to unleash it without colliding with his values and beliefs about the proper way to enforce the "chain of command". The philosophy hadn't sunk in.

TNSTAAFL*

*There's no such thing as a free lunch.

Ralph Ellis, in an essay posted at Watts Up With That, outlines the challenges of dependency on renewable energy sources:

However, it is my belief that this sublime day-dream actually holds the seeds for our economic decline and for social disorder on an unprecedented scale. Why? Because no technical and industrial society can maintain itself on unreliable and intermittent power supplies. In 2003 there were six major electrical blackouts across the world, and the American Northeast blackout of August 14th was typical of these. The outage started in Ohio, when some power lines touched some trees and took out the Eastlake power station, but the subsequent cascade failure took out 256 power stations within one hour.

The entire Northeast was down onto emergency electrical supplies, and the result was social and economic chaos. Nothing, in our integrated and automated world, works without electricity. Transport came to a grinding halt. Aircraft were grounded, trains halted and road traffic was at a standstill, due to a lack of traffic lights and fuel. Water supplies were severely disrupted, as were telecommunications, while buildings had to be evacuated due to a lack of fire detection and suppression systems. Without any available transport, many commuters were forced to sleep in offices or in Central Park, and while the summer temperatures made this an office-adventure to remember, had this been winter the results of this electrical failure could have been catastrophic.

This is what happens to a major technical civilisation when its life-blood, its electrical supply, is turned off. Chaos looms, people die, production ceases, life is put on hold. Yet this was just a once-in-a-decade event, a memorable occasion to laugh about over dinner-parties for many years to come, but just imagine what would happen to a society where this happened every week, or if the power was cut for a whole fortnight or more. Now things are getting serious. Without transport, refrigeration, computers and key workers, food production and distribution would cease. Sleeping in Central Park on a balmy summer’s night is a memorable inconvenience, whereas fifty million empty bellies is getting very serious indeed. In fact, it is a recipe for violence and civil unrest.

He goes on to illustrate the costs associated with "free" renewable energy sources, due to the costs associated with a) converting them into electricity, and b) creating the spare generating capacity or energy storage systems required to match supply and demand. (He's from the U.K., so many of his examples relate to Britain or the European Union.)

Of course the costs for developing, installing, and operating those renewable energy resources mean green jobs, beloved of posturing politicians. However, Spain's experience should give us pause because those green jobs meant significant job losses elsewhere in the economy plus high taxes to subsidize them.

My problem with the green push is the rush to spend lots of other people's money in ways that bring little benefit to those paying for it other than feeling good that we're "doing something". As charities go, I'd rather get more bang for my buck. That's why I appreciate the work being done by Bjorn Lomborg.

Bjorn Lomborg, also known as "The Skeptical Environmentalist" and a frequent op-ed contributor, is Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. They "promote the use of sound economic science – especially the principle of prioritization – to make sure that with limited resources, we achieve the most ‘good’ for people and the planet." While they agree that global warming is a problem, their 2008 consensus ranked it far down the priority list of how to spend $75 billion over 4 years:

The experts considered four solutions in this area: investing only in mitigation; investing in mitigation and research and development into low‐carbon energy technology; investing only in research and development into low‐carbon energy technology; investing in a combination of mitigation, research and development and adaptation. Mitigation only and a combination of mitigation and R&D were given the lowest two rankings by the expert panel, due to their very poor benefit/cost ratio. The option including adaptation was discarded, as the adaptation is essentially included in nearly every other option presented to the Copenhagen Consensus. An
investment into research and development in low‐carbon energy technologies was ranked 14th by the expert panel.

(His related WSJ op-ed is here.)

I'm a fan of clean air, clean water, and a healthy biosphere. I remember when the Cuyahoga River caught fire in 1969 due to pollution. And that ten years later, biologists were astounded how many species of fish had returned once the pollution was cleaned up. In many ways, however, I think the environmental movement in the US has lost its bearings as it's won its case on egregious pollution. But it fights on, seeking more and more expensive remedies for less and less benefit.

Free Association

I've been thinking lately that the Republicans need a new message, focused on the positive and aspirational, rather than righteous indignation at the latest outrage committed by the Administration and Congress. And it has to answer "What's in it for me?"

A public that has been lulled into complacency, victimhood, and dependency on the munificence of the government needs to relearn the joys of the freedoms we inherited from the Founding Fathers and renewed each generation by legions of patriots.

I came across a couple of articles today, on entirely different topics, that still make powerful cases for freedom as a way of life. The first is a Newsbusters blog post about Senator Jim DeMint's commenting on Arlen Specter changing parties. Mr. DeMint said,

"We're seeing across the country right now that the biggest tent of all is the tent of freedom and what we need to do as Republicans is convince Americans that freedom can work in all areas of their life - for every American, whether it's education, or health care or creating jobs. [snip]

"What it means is what has worked in America are free people, free markets for years," DeMint said. "And what we see now is a government expanding into all areas of our economy, increasing spending and debt at levels we never talked about. Americans who are normally not even political are coming out to tea parties and protesting. These aren't Republicans or Democrats. These are just concerned Americans."

Over at Big Hollywood, Russ Dvonch waxes eloquent in his essay Heroic Hollywood: American Exceptionalism and the Hollywood Hero:

Freedom is fundamental to American Exceptionalism. The central moral idea of America is that individuals, by right, should be free to choose their own destiny and that the purpose of government is to insure the freedom of individuals.

And freedom is fundamental to the Hollywood Hero. Hollywood filmmaking assumes that the hero has free will. The Hero is presented with numerous moral choices during the course of the movie, just as we are faced with moral choices in life. When he makes the wrong moral choice, things go badly. When he makes the right moral choice…well, things may still go badly and it will be a tough fight, but in the end the good will win out.

The blessings of Freedom are the “opportunity and hope” that America (sic) Exceptionalism brings to humanity. And freedom is the inspirational message behind the Hollywood Hero.

Hugh Hewitt's favorite anonymous ad man isn't sanguine about the GOP getting its act together soon to craft a more compelling message:

If the momentum from the Tea Parties is to continue, it's up to individuals to continue it. Waiting for the GOP to pick up the ball and run could not only cost momentum - it could cost the game. The Tea Parties indicate that although the GOP still hasn't figured out 21st Century communications, conservative Americans most certainly have.

Sigh.

Carbon Insanity

The EPA has finally issued its proposed endangerment finding on greenhouse gases:

The Administrator signed a proposal with two distinct findings regarding greenhouse gases under section 202(a) of the Clean Air Act:

• The Administrator is proposing to find that the current and projected concentrations of the mix of six key greenhouse gases—carbon dioxide (CO₂), methane (CH₄), nitrous oxide (N₂O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF₆)—in the atmosphere threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations. This is referred to as the endangerment finding.
• The Administrator is further proposing to find that the combined emissions of CO₂, CH₄, N₂O, and HFCs from new motor vehicles and motor vehicle engines contribute to the atmospheric concentrations of these key greenhouse gases and hence to the threat of climate change. This is referred to as the cause or contribute finding.

Today’s proposed action, as well as any final action in the future, would not itself impose any requirements on industry or other entities. An endangerment finding under one provision of the Clean Air Act would not by itself automatically trigger regulation under the entire Act.

Of course not! But it certainly sets the stage for Congressional, administrative, and judicial mischief. Over at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, there's a letter from the Free Market Coalition to the EPA Administrator outlining some of the likely consequences:

That the endangerment finding will trigger a regulatory cascade threatening the economy is abundantly documented in EPA’s July 2008 Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) and numerous comments on it. The endangerment finding will compel EPA to establish GHG emission standards for new motor vehicles under CAA §202, which in turn will make carbon dioxide (CO2) a pollutant “subject to regulation” under the Act’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pre-construction permitting program. In addition, the finding will be precedential for the endangerment test that initiates a National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) rulemaking.

No small business could operate under the PSD administrative burden, even apart from any technology investments the firm might have to make to qualify for a permit. An estimated 1.2 million previously unregulated entities (office buildings, big box stores, enclosed malls, hotels, apartment buildings, even commercial kitchens) would become “major stationary sources” for PSD purposes. All would be vulnerable to new regulation, monitoring, paperwork, penalties, and litigation, the moment they undertake to build new facilities or modify existing ones. The flood of PSD permit applications would overwhelm EPA and State agency administrative resources, subjecting “major” sources to additional costs, delays, and uncertainties. A more potent Anti-Stimulus package would be difficult to imagine.

Since EPA plans to find endangerment on both health and welfare grounds, the Agency could be compelled to establish “primary” (health-based) NAAQS for GHGs. Logically, the standard would be set below current atmospheric levels. Even very stringent emission limitations applied worldwide over a century would likely be insufficient to lower GHG concentrations. Yet the CAA requires EPA to ensure attainment of primary NAAQS within five or at most 10 years—and it forbids EPA to take costs into account. Regulate CO2 under the NAAQS program and there is, in principle, no economic hardship that could not be imposed on the American people. (Emphasis added.)

The Washington Post, in an editorial, says it prefers Congressional action over piecemeal regulations:

Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), then-chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, predicted last year that seeking to control climate change with such piecemeal regulation would lead to a "glorious mess."

The best way to stop this from happening is for Congress to adopt a more rational scheme, by putting a price on carbon with a tax (ideally) or a cap-and-trade market. Next week, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.), the current chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, will hold hearings on the discussion draft of comprehensive energy legislation that he and Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), chairman of the energy and environment subcommittee, released before the Easter recess. While the proposal details many ambitious programs for renewable energy and efficiency, it is noticeably mute on the contours of a cap-and-trade system. Specifically, it doesn't say whether the pollution allowances would be auctioned or a portion given away to industry to ease the transition to a carbon-constrained economy. This is an important question, one whose answer will have a profound impact on the way Americans live -- one of many basic issues that should be settled by their representatives in Congress.

But the WAPO makes it sound as if regulating carbon by Congress is better than regulating carbon by the EPA. Why should carbon dioxide and the other 5 "greenhouse gases" be regulated more than they are now anyway?

I'll grant that human activity is the cause of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), because that's what "anthropogenic" means. However, is AGW a major driver of climate change?

• What about that big yellow thing in the sky?
• What about water vapor?
• What about questionable siting of ground-based weather stations?
• And why is climate change the new buzzword instead of global warming?

Lots of questions that the political class in Washington doesn't seem interested in having answered. Meanwhile, check out the many ways CO2 benefits our lives. Beer anyone?

The Panic of 1819

Yesterday, I happened upon the PBS series "The Supreme Court". As I tuned in, they were explaining some of the landmark decisions made by the Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John Marshall. A featured case was McCulloch v Maryland, which took place in the midst of the Panic of 1819.

I was intrigued by their description of the depression of 1818/panic of 1819, which featured a severe recession, bailouts of debtors, reduced foreign trade, and lots of anger directed at the banks and money men. Ohio History Central sets the scene:

During the various British-French conflicts, United States goods, especially agricultural products, were in high demand in Europe, [and] Americans had purchased Western land at an extravagant rate. In 1815, Americans purchased roughly one million acres of land from the federal government. In 1819, the amount of land had skyrocketed to 3.5 million acres. Many Americans could not afford to purchase the land outright. The federal government did allow Americans to buy the land on credit.

As the economy ground to a halt in 1819, many Americans did not have the money to pay off their loans. The Bank of the United States, as well as state and private banks, began recalling loans, demanding immediate payment. The banks' actions resulted in the Banking Crisis of 1819 and helped lead to the Panic of 1819. The federal government tried to alleviate some of the suffering with the Land Act of 1820 and the Relief Act of 1821, but many farmers, Ohioans included, lost everything.

As a result of the Bank of the United States' actions, money became scarce, making it even more difficult for people to pay their debts. Several states, including Maryland and Ohio, implemented taxes on the Bank of the United States. These states hoped that, by taxing the banks, money would then enter the grasp of state governments. The state governments could then make loans to their citizens, thus relieving the money shortage.

Gee, land speculation, easy credit, and debtors crying for relief when the economy tanked and they couldn't pay their mortgages.

The Federal Government had been selling land to pay off its debts from the War of 1812. Inflation (abetted by the use of paper money) made the debts cheaper. Wikipedia explains:

Austrian school economists view the nationwide recession that resulted from the Panic of 1819 as the first failure of expansionary monetary policy. This explanation is based on the Austrian theory of the business cycle. Government borrowed heavily to finance the War of 1812, which caused tremendous strain on the banks’ reserves of specie and led inevitably to a suspension of specie payments in 1814 during war & again in 1819-1821 during recession, violating contractual rights of depositors.^[5]

The suspension of the obligation to redeem greatly spurred the establishment of new banks and the expansion of bank note issues. This inflation of money encouraged unsustainable investments to take place. It soon became clear the monetary situation was bad, and the Second Bank of the United States was forced to call a halt to its expansion and launch a painful process of contraction. There was a wave of bankruptcies, bank failures, and bank runs; prices dropped and wide-scale urban unemployment began. By 1819, land measures in the U.S. had also reached 3,500,000 acres, and many Americans did not have enough money to pay off to their loans.^[6]

Today, we have a highly stimulative Fed policy, low interest rates (and getting lower by the day), and a government dedicated to printing money as fast as it can. We won't be done in by tight money like our forebears were in 1819. But is Washington setting the stage for a worse boom and bust in the future by its attempts to goose the money supply?

Totally Clueless

Andy McCarthy over at The Corner:

Is there any evidence, since the government began nationalizing swaths of the economy last autumn, that Washington has a clue about what causes positive corporate performance or about what is in the financial interest of a business enterprise? Yet the more value the Obama administration and the Democrat Congress destroy — their demagoguery and fiscally insane policies eviscerating the very tax base needed to pay for their exploding liabilities — the more control they get.

Why is it that our leaders in Washington and their staffs, are clueless about how wealth is really created? Could it be that they have never worked in private industry?

Consider the number of politicians and bureaucrats who have spent their entire working lives in the not-for-profit sector, including government, academia, unions, and non-profit NGOs. President Obama is a prime example of the leeching class, who make their living off the profits of others: obtaining money by taxation, or grants of tax monies, or donations, or dues.

The Democrats are good at winning elections, for which populist demagoguery is quite useful. It's not so hot as a governing philosophy. Joe Nocera writes in the New York Times:

What the country really needs right now from Congress is facts instead of rhetoric. Instead of these “raise your hand if you took a private jet to get here” exercises of outraged populism, we need hearings that educate and illuminate. Hearings like the old Watergate hearings. Hearings in which knowledge is accumulated over time, and a record is established. Hearings that might actually help us get out of this crisis. It’s happened before. In 1932, Congress established the Pecora committee, named for its chief counsel, Ferdinand Pecora. It was an intense, two-year inquiry, and its findings — executives shorting their own company’s stock, for instance — shocked the country. It also led to the establishment of the Securities and Exchange Commission and other investor protections. One person who has been calling for a new Pecora committee is Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama, a Republican and key member of the Senate Banking Committee.

“As we restructure our regulatory system, we need to be thorough,” he told me. “We need to understand what caused it. We shouldn’t rush it.”

Meanwhile, the House Financial Services Committee has scheduled a hearing on Tuesday featuring Mr. Bernanke and Mr. Geithner. The hearing has been called to find out only one thing: what did the two men know about the A.I.G. bonuses, and when did they know it?

Is that Nero I hear fiddling?

(H/T Mark Steyn)

Emirates unhappy with Airbus A380

If this article proves true, Airbus' fragile reputation for the A380 superjumbo is in for a drubbing (H/T Lucianne.com):

DUBAI-BASED airline Emirates is unhappy with its first four giant Airbus A380 aircraft, which showed manufacturing faults that forced flights to be cancelled, a report said on Saturday.

The German weekly Der Spiegel, in its issue to be published on Monday, said Emirates in February gave Airbus officials a 46-page report listing its complaints, including burned electric cables, missing cabin fittings and engine defects.

A source close to Airbus told AFP on Thursday Emirates was seeking a delay in the delivery of several of the long-haul A380 superjumbo jets because of financing difficulties.

The airline is Airbus's biggest customer for the double-decker A380, having ordered 58 of them.

The quality issues could provide the Emirates with the leverage to renegotiate their contract, and ease their financing difficulties.

Related post: Airbus Discovers Integration Matters

Cross-posted at Thwarting Murphy.

War Games

The US and South Korea are running their annual war games. North Korea is objecting and being bellicose, China has harassed a US mapping ship, and Iran is closer than ever to being capable of building a nuclear weapon.

Rather than deriding Vice-President Biden for speaking off the cuff too often, maybe we should consider him a prophet. Remember back in October when he said:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We're about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America.

"Watch. We're going to have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.

"And he's going to need help . . . to stand with him. Because it's not going to be apparent initially; it's not going to be apparent that we're right."

Hmmmm.

Truth and Consequences

Hugh Hewitt's favorite anonymous ad exec suggests that Republicans need a new watchword: "Truth".

The Truth is powerful on its own. It can be spoken in short sentences.

The Truth is simple. The Truth is pure. The Truth trumps opinion. And although "Free" is frequently considered the more powerful marketing word, the truth is, the Truth wins head to head. Irrefutable Truth eventually ends every argument. Emotional Truth eventually wins every heart and mind. There is, right this very moment, a massive opportunity for the Right to not only embrace, but to -- in a marketing sense -- "own" the concept of, and the very word: Truth.

The Democrats have gone too far down the road, now, of a faux concept of "Free," and made too many missteps along that road, to be able to own them both. It's ours for the taking, and the American people are showing every sign of hunger for exactly that: The Truth.

To pull it off, though, we must live as we speak. We can't call out their pork, and ignore or brush off ours. We can't talk around our own mistakes -- we have to own up. Living up to the Truth is difficult, in the best of times. But even in times like these, it's never impossible.

Charles Krauthammer, in a widely published op-ed, lists the evidence that our new President is willfully deceiving the American public to achieve his policy goals:

[F]ew undertake the kind of brazen deception at the heart of Obama's radically transformative economic plan, a rhetorical sleight of hand so smoothly offered that few noticed.

[...] The markets' recent precipitous decline is a reaction not just to the absence of any plausible bank rescue plan, but also to the suspicion that Obama sees the continuing financial crisis as usefully creating the psychological conditions -- the sense of crisis bordering on fear-itself panic -- for enacting his "Big Bang" agenda to federalize and/or socialize health care, education and energy, the commanding heights of post-industrial society.

Clever politics, but intellectually dishonest to the core. Health, education and energy -- worthy and weighty as they may be -- are not the cause of our financial collapse. And they are not the cure. The fraudulent claim that they are both cause and cure is the rhetorical device by which an ambitious president intends to enact the most radical agenda of social transformation seen in our lifetime.

The consequences of the stimulus bill and the Administration's budget plans are to reward failure, encourage dependency on the government, and punish the successful. Congressman John Campbell (R-CA) is hearing from his constituents who contemplate "Going Galt":

Last week, I spoke to Dave Weigel from the Washington Independent about the applicability of the fabled Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged, and it has generated some considerable buzz among liberal and conservative blogs and activists alike.

If you are unfamiliar with the book, this is the synopsis the Washington Independent provided:

Creative people (the “Atlases” of the title) are hounded and punished for their labor by an oppressive, socialistic state. In response, they retreat from society to a hidden enclave where they watch civilization’s slow collapse.

I spent the last few weeks recovering from surgery, and I’ve had a lot of time to talk with business owners in my district, and to be perfectly blunt, I am hearing more and more of those owners thinking of “Going Galt” in response to President Obama’s spending spree. After all, someone is going to have to pay for this massive expansion of government.

This is troubling because small business supplies a substantial number of jobs in America, and now they are beginning to see that they are being force-fed a de facto punishment for their ambitions and success.

Rep. Campbell is not the only one hearing this theme. Here's a letter to the editor from today's Wall Street Journal (not a permalink to the letter):

Deep Potholes on the Republican Road to Recovery

Rep. Paul Ryan's comments in "A Republican Road to Economic Recovery" (op-ed, March 2) point to the vast philosophical and practical divide between the Obama administration and the real world. Would someone, anyone, please point to one item in the stimulus package that makes it more likely that I, as a small businessman, will hire additional employees or make further capital investments in equipment? The recurrent ill-conceived antibusiness, anti-investment statements and policies of the current administration keep the stock market so depressed that none of us with large portions of our savings in the market can afford to retire. As far as I can see, that is the only thing that the Obama administration is doing to preserve jobs.

James N. Domingue
Lafayette, La.

Grim consequences indeed if this becomes a prevalent viewpoint among business owners.

Here are a couple more of today's op-eds worth a read (H/T Real Clear Politics):

• The President Starts a War on Business - Kevin Hassett, Bloomberg
• Who Pays for Cap and Trade? - Wall Street Journal

Speaking truth to power, indeed!

Rules of the Game II

On Saturday, WSJ ran an editorial "A Capital Strike" examining the latest economic statistics. It confirmed my surmise about velocity and uncertainty (Rules of the Game):

The innards of the fourth quarter report are, if anything, uglier than the top-line decline. Business spending on equipment and software fell 27.8%, the worst in a half-century. Spending on durable goods fell 22.4%. The only spending that increased was by government. Monetary velocity -- a measure of how much the money stock trades hands -- fell faster than it ever has since the data began to be compiled in 1959.

These are signs that all but the most basic consumption and investment stopped cold when the financial panic hit warp speed in September and October of last year. This isn't a typical recession driven by high interest rates. This is an extension of the financial panic into the real economy driven by fear and the rapid unloading of debt among consumers and businesses both large and small.

And then there's this about the impact of rules from "How Government Prolonged the Depression" in today's WSJ Opinion section:

The main lesson we have learned from the New Deal is that wholesale government intervention can -- and does -- deliver the most unintended of consequences. This was true in the 1930s, when artificially high wages and prices kept us depressed for more than a decade, it was true in the 1970s when price controls were used to combat inflation but just produced shortages. It is true today, when poorly designed regulation produced a banking system that took on too much risk.

Hugh Hewitt comments:

Now if I was advising the crafty Mitch McConnell or the always thinking Jon Kyl, I'd suggest they request Amity Shlaes to address a luncheon gathering of as many senators as they could find as a way of bringing attention to the core message of The Forgotten Man, her magnificent history of the Great Depression. That core message has to do with the certainty of rules that markets require to function. Time is short so I don't think the Senate GOP can expect their Democratic friends to read Shlaes' riveting book, but if they bought lunch in the spirit of bipartisanship and asked Amity to speak?

Amen!

Rules of the Game

In systems theory, rules determine the relationships between the system and its sub-systems, between the system and its environment, and inter-relationships among the components of the system. The "rule of law" is important, for it holds that the rules are the same for all, and aren't changed capriciously: they allow us to plan rationally for the future.

Wretchard quotes management guru Peter Drucker (H/T Dr. Sanity):

Economic activity, by definition, commits present resources to the future, i.e., to highly uncertain expectations … While it is futile to try to eliminate risk, and questionable to try to minimize it, it is essential that the risks taken be the right risks … We must be able to choose rationally among risk-taking courses of action rather than plunge into uncertainty on the basis of hunch, hearsay, or experience, no matter how meticulously quantified.

If we don't know what the rules of the game are, we can't choose rationally among the courses of action before us.

One of the reasons societies spawn governments is to have the means to set, and enforce, the rules by which the society operates. In complex open systems such as our society, legislation and regulations affect behavior for good and bad:

The growth of litigation and regulation has injected a paralyzing uncertainty into everyday choices. All around us are warnings and legal risks. The modern credo is not "Yes We Can" but "No You Can't." Our sense of powerlessness is pervasive.
[...]
We have lost the idea, at every level of social life, that people can grab hold of a problem and fix it. Defensiveness has swept across the country like a cold wave. We have become a culture of rule followers, trained to frame every solution in terms of existing law or possible legal risk. The person of responsibility is replaced by the person of caution. When in doubt, don't.

Right now, we are in a period marked by grave doubts about our entire economic system. In the face of massive uncertainty, people prefer to sit on their hands and their cash. They stop spending money, banks quit lending money, and suddenly there's less money changing hands in a given period of time (measured by "velocity").

Over at The Corner, I finally found someone talking about the crash in monetary velocity, economist Bruce Bartlett:

I think Friedman would tell the Fed to pump as much liquidity into the economy as possible. His Monetary History of the United States proved that a shrinkage of the money supply was at the core of the Great Depression and that the Fed failed the country by not increasing the money supply. I believe we are in a similar situation. The problem has been a sharp decline in velocity—the ratio of the money supply to GDP—which has economic effects identical to those that would result from a decline in the money supply. When velocity falls, GDP will fall unless the money supply increases enough the maintain GDP at the reduced level of velocity. The real problem is that the Fed is having difficulty getting money circulating because interest rates on Treasury bills are close to zero. Under these conditions, monetary policy is impotent. It is like pushing on a string.

In "The Forgotten Man" by Amity Schlaes, she points out that FDR did a lot of experimenting to the detriment of business and the economy; her theory is that he actually prolonged the misery by doing so.

The current economic uncertainties with the failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, bank seizures and fire sales, and ill-crafted "bailout" legislation passed by Congress aren't helping this consumer's confidence because the solons in Washington and New York keep telling us that there's more intervention -- with more changes in the rules -- yet to come.

I can't plan because I don't know what the rules will be in 3 months. And neither does anyone else.

Hero of Flight 1549

Wow! What a feat to ditch an Airbus A320 safely in the Hudson River with no loss of life. As Miles Vorkosigan is wont to say, luck favors the prepared:

• An experienced pilot and recognized safety expert with a trained crew
  
• An aircraft designed to stay afloat
• A very wide river near the airport to ditch in
• Commercial ferries and emergency craft on the scene quickly to rescue passengers
• Ferry crews that "routinely train for all types of river emergencies."
• Passengers who had just been briefed before takeoff on emergency procedures

This reader comment at the Wall Street Journal pretty well sums it up:

The pilot, co-pilot, attendants, the controllers, the teams of rescue workers, the trainers - simulators for pilot training, the manufacturer are all the heros in this event - everyone played a role and the passengers, people on the ground and the families of all were spared a real tragedy today. Thank the Lord we have dedicated, well-trained people in many walks of life - without them, life would be very difficult for many of us.

Comment by Jim - January 15, 2009 at 11:45 pm

The Smoking Gun shares the resume of Capt Sullennberger (h/t Drudge).

Cross-posted at Thwarting Murphy.

Democrats' Principles are MIA

Browsing the WSJ op-eds, I spotted this howler in The Tilting Yard, "Obama Should Act Like He Won":

Democrats have massive majorities these days not because they waffle hither and yon but because their historic principles have been vindicated by events.

Say what? Principles like, control the media and you control the message? Outspend the other side on campaign ads and you can overwhelm the opposition's message? A better ground game on election day makes for victories? Promise her anything, but give her Chanel?

(oops, showing my age there...)

Classical liberal principles that this nation was founded on (e.g. life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) have precious little to do with how the Democrats have rolled up "massive majorities" in the last two election cycles. And remember that Barack Obama's coat-tails weren't nearly as long as the Democrats had hoped: neither chamber has the size of Democratic majority of the 95th Congress that came in with Jimmy Carter in 1977.

In October 2006, Sebastian Mallaby penned "A Party Without Principles" in the Washington Post. Key graf:

[T]he infuriating thing about the Democrats is that, just a decade ago, they knew how to empathize with voters' economic insecurities without collapsing into irresponsibility; they combined attractively progressive social policies with sensible pro-market fiscal responsibility. Now many in the party have lost interest in this necessary balance. If the Democrats win a measure of power next month, it's hard to see what they will do with it.

Prophetic words indeed.

The online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a nice page that delves into the variations of classic vs new liberalism and their historic roots.

Defective Defect Analysis

Over at American Thinker, Paul Carlson seeks to explain the differences between conservatives and liberals in terms of defect analysis (aka root cause analysis). While his explanations of "common cause" variations and "special cause" variations are sound, I think that he unfairly stereotypes both camps:

The concepts of common and special cause also work in understanding why politicians do what they do. Liberals tend to assume that all social problems are "common," to be addressed by redesigning the whole system. They always call for some new congressional or regulatory or judicial action to impose a blanket "solution" that seldom works. Domestically, such blunt measures usually create new problems, and exacerbate others. Internationally, vague ideas about "America's image abroad" lead to naïve assumptions that a new President will make this country beloved everywhere.

Conservatives tend to assume that all social problems are "special," best handled by a specific tweak addressing that singular case. Thus the best way to fight crime is to prosecute each criminal, even though this does not address the reasons why new criminals will pop up. Internationally, terrorists are best dealt with militarily, often via pinpoint strikes, while PR specialists can worry about America's image later.

Both camps understand that creating rules and regulations by which society is to be governed is an expression of political power. But the philosophical distinction becomes whether more or less legislation and regulation will generally help or exacerbate the problem.

Liberals these days tend to favor more regulation and bigger government, lest the country veer away from the straight and narrow path to utopia. When you're part of the best and brightest, the elite, it's seductive to think that you have better answers than the masses -- or the current administration -- ergo, getting a government post allows you to serve society by being in a position to put your bright ideas into action.

Unfortunately, the do-gooder instinct tends to infantilize the recipient/victim, smothering rather than encouraging growth and development. Consider how much monetary aid has been sent to various African nations since WWII, and how little progress there is to show for it. Martin Durkin contends that aid has destroyed the society in Africa. Furthermore,

There are many on the left – most people on the left I’m sure, who genuinely want to help Africans (and indeed poor people generally). The difficulty is, their desire to help people comes second to their emotional commitment to socialism. The left and the greens are utterly wedded to their anti-capitalist ideology. They refuse to listen to arguments, no matter how cogent or well supported, that contradict their political prejudices. You can tell a green that their opposition to the use of DDT has resulted in the needless deaths of literally millions of people from malaria. What’s their reaction? The greens still support the ban on DDT.

In the end, their subjective self-righteousness counts for nothing. It doesn’t matter what they think they’re doing. It matters what they’re actually doing. So, yes, I think we need to confront people on the left with the consequences of their policies. They are killing people. They have blood on their hands.

Aid we should distinguish from charity of course. There are many people who, with the help of charity from individuals, are doing wonderful work in Africa. But these are sticking plasters when what is needed is surgery. [Emphasis added.]

It's not a proclivity toward considering all problems to be "common cause" variations that lead liberals toward a nanny state, but their prevailing worldview that favors socialism as the fundamental construct of how society should be ordered. That paradigm drives the solution set they consider for any given problem.

I disagree that "[c]onservatives tend to assume that all social problems are 'special'." Rather, many social problems have their root in counterproductive programs, rules, and societal norms that require a different approach than liberals typically endorse.

Ronald Reagan, in his first Inaugural address, illustrated the conservative approach to dealing with the financial mess he inherited from the Carter administration:

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden. The solutions we seek must be equitable, with no one group singled out to pay a higher price.

Rules are necessary, for without them you have anarchy. But Conservatives and Libertarians prefer less government and less micro-managing legislation and regulation because they understand that our country and her imperfect citizens create a complex society that defies central planning and control.

Related posts:
T-2 Days and Counting: Voting God's Politics
When Social Justice is Counterproductive

Atlas Shrugs Again

I'm not the only one noting parallels between Ayn Rand's classic novel "Atlas Shrugged" and the current government fad of taxing productive people and companies to throw money at the less productive.

In today's Wall Street Journal, Stephen Moore pens "From Fiction to Fact in 52 Years":

For the uninitiated, the moral of the story is simply this: Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism.

[...]

David Kelley, the president of the Atlas Society, which is dedicated to promoting Rand's ideas, explains that "the older the book gets, the more timely its message." He tells me that there are plans to make "Atlas Shrugged" into a major motion picture -- it is the only classic novel of recent decades that was never made into a movie. "We don't need to make a movie out of the book," Mr. Kelley jokes. "We are living it right now."

'Nuff said.

Milestone for Mr. Murphy

It's been 60 years since Mr. Murphy was credited with the "law" that bears his name: Whatever can go wrong, will go wrong.

Marcus Dunk wrote a nice tribute to the US Air Force safety engineer in today's Daily Mail:

Born in 1918, Murphy was the eldest of five children and attended the prestigious United States Military Academy, West Point, from which he graduated in 1940. He was immediately commissioned into the army Air Corps, and during the Second World War saw action against the Japanese in China and Burma.

A fine and conscientious pilot who was often described as 'no-nonsense', Murphy decided after the war to involve himself in the technological aspects of aircraft design, and went to work as a research and development officer for the Air Force.

[...]

For Murphy himself, the law and its variations to which he gave his name was the cause of great annoyance. While he preferred to see the law as a principle of good, defensive design - a willingness to be prepared for the worst - he regarded most versions of his Law as 'ridiculous, trivial and erroneous', and said as much before his death in 1990.

Although he may have failed to see the joke, he does have something of a point. While it is easy to label Murphy's Law as the ultimate pessimist's charter, there is an undercurrent of optimism running just beneath the surface of this Law, one that wryly acknowledges that although things will probably go wrong, recognising that fact is the first step in being prepared for when that actually happens. [emphasis added]

As any Scout would say, "Be prepared!"

My cousin Rob's corollary is that simply identifying the "possible" modes of failure reduces the chance of those failures occurring, both during testing and in use.

Dr. W. Edwards Deming, who preached the gospel of statistical process control (SPC), was adamant that you couldn't test quality into a product: it has to be built in. That principle is just as applicable to software projects as widget manufacturing.

For any development project, integration and test (I&T) is the phase where past sins, both technical and managerial, become apparent. Development schedules slip, squeezing testing, while system-of-system design flaws lay undiscovered until the whole product is assembled, leaving no time to recover.

If you expect the piece parts of your software or hardware system to come together smoothly during the I&T phase of your project, you really need to concentrate on identifying the factors that could go wrong during I&T and eliminate or mitigate their risks -- and do it early in the game.

In other words, it's good engineering practice to try and thwart Murphy's Law by eliminating things that can go wrong. Thank you Mr. Murphy!