After a long absence ...
Pronounce "Christmas" - short i
Pronounce "Crist", a surname - short i
Pronounce "Christian" - short i
Pronounce "Christ" - ... long i ????
What gives (short i)?
Showing posts with label Observations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Observations. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
If You Can't Say Something Nice ...
I got a better feel, today, for the content of some of the Wikileaks documents. Reuters has a nice review:
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT1I720101130
Despite the sometimes childish nature of the contents, in general, they appear to have what would be considered to be normal internal information (with a few exceptions).
It is interesting, though, that there are numerous examples of unethical behavior, at least according to the yearly ethics training that my employer provides.
We offered money and meetings with the president in exchange for taking prisoners out of Gitmo. This would be an offense that would land you in jail if you did something similar in exchange for business.
There were numerous examples of authors inserting personal opinion in the technical analysis that often bordered on slander. My company has explicit training on what to lay down in print and always says to ask yourself the question: "How would that look and how would I feel if this memo ever got into the media?"
This speaks very poorly of our diplomatic corps, not to leave out our ineptitude to safeguard State Department communications.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6AT1I720101130
Despite the sometimes childish nature of the contents, in general, they appear to have what would be considered to be normal internal information (with a few exceptions).
It is interesting, though, that there are numerous examples of unethical behavior, at least according to the yearly ethics training that my employer provides.
We offered money and meetings with the president in exchange for taking prisoners out of Gitmo. This would be an offense that would land you in jail if you did something similar in exchange for business.
There were numerous examples of authors inserting personal opinion in the technical analysis that often bordered on slander. My company has explicit training on what to lay down in print and always says to ask yourself the question: "How would that look and how would I feel if this memo ever got into the media?"
This speaks very poorly of our diplomatic corps, not to leave out our ineptitude to safeguard State Department communications.
Sunday, September 26, 2010
The death of English has been exaggerated greatly
I have had a sneaking suspicion that, over the next 10 years, as the Chinese emerge as the number one global economy, that English will disappear as the language of business and travel. After this week, I have had second thoughts.
I was at a trade conference in Budapest, Hungary, a beautiful city with much to offer. I got the impression that it is a vacation destination due to its central European location and numerous natural "baths".
I was struck quickly by how easy it was for me to communicate. Everyone was speaking in English. As I sat at restaurants and visited sites and shops, English was all around. The Italians, French, Germans, Japanese, Swedes, Chinese, and even the Hungarians (and other folks as well) all spoke English, not just to me, but to each other. Italians cannot speak Hungarian, nor can Germans, and so on, so everyone conversed in English. This represents an interesting issue and involves billions of people. Basically, due to the huge influence of Britain and the US after World War II and into the travel and international business age, everyone learned English. Some folks learned other languages, but in Europe, in particular, I think it is clear. Germans know German, and they were taught English, but they do business all over Europe (now the world). Maybe they pick up another language or two, but they cannot cover them all, so English is something they all have in common.
I know now, in retrospect, that this makes sense. But, until I went to a city in a country that was a real tourist destination, I did not realize how pervasive the use of English is. I had an easier time getting around Budapest than any city I have ever visited where English was not a native tongue.
I think, too, that there are other barriers to Chinese becoming a global language:
I was at a trade conference in Budapest, Hungary, a beautiful city with much to offer. I got the impression that it is a vacation destination due to its central European location and numerous natural "baths".
I was struck quickly by how easy it was for me to communicate. Everyone was speaking in English. As I sat at restaurants and visited sites and shops, English was all around. The Italians, French, Germans, Japanese, Swedes, Chinese, and even the Hungarians (and other folks as well) all spoke English, not just to me, but to each other. Italians cannot speak Hungarian, nor can Germans, and so on, so everyone conversed in English. This represents an interesting issue and involves billions of people. Basically, due to the huge influence of Britain and the US after World War II and into the travel and international business age, everyone learned English. Some folks learned other languages, but in Europe, in particular, I think it is clear. Germans know German, and they were taught English, but they do business all over Europe (now the world). Maybe they pick up another language or two, but they cannot cover them all, so English is something they all have in common.
I know now, in retrospect, that this makes sense. But, until I went to a city in a country that was a real tourist destination, I did not realize how pervasive the use of English is. I had an easier time getting around Budapest than any city I have ever visited where English was not a native tongue.
I think, too, that there are other barriers to Chinese becoming a global language:
- It is a difficult language, foreign in structure and tone to most of the business and travel world.
- Which dialect should you learn? (I don't know, perhaps one is dominant enough in China to suffice.)
- There is not yet a global driver to teach it in European, North or South American schools. Kids in these regions that do not already speak English, normally have the option to learn it in school.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
This is not your Caesar's Latin
I was walking through Budapest today and stumbled onto the basilica. There was an inscription on it that made me think back to my Latin studies in junior high and high school ...
"Ego sum via, veritas, et vitas."
I was pleased that it hit me immediately that this was messed up. Latin always has the verb at the end and there is no special word for I. Clearly, someone, versed in English, was trying to say:
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Seems odd to have this carved into 75 year old stone, though; especially at the top of the entrance to the basilica.
"Ego sum via, veritas, et vitas."
I was pleased that it hit me immediately that this was messed up. Latin always has the verb at the end and there is no special word for I. Clearly, someone, versed in English, was trying to say:
I am the way, the truth, and the life.
Seems odd to have this carved into 75 year old stone, though; especially at the top of the entrance to the basilica.
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Faulty Logic
I was listening to NPR yesterday on the way home from the airport. I got a bit furious over one of the commentators who stated that the Tea Party and the Republicans are arguing two sides of the same coin. According to the commentator, the groups want smaller government with less deficit spending yet they both want tax cuts to remain in place for all people (yes, including the "rich"). She said that this makes no sense and is mutually incompatible.
Talk about faulty logic. Is it not easy to see that you can hold both of these tenets (as I do) by reducing government spending? Spend less, much less (enough to cover continuing the tax relief) and deficits will go down. Tax cuts (continued ... not new ones) and deficit reduction. What is incompatible about this?
Talk about faulty logic. Is it not easy to see that you can hold both of these tenets (as I do) by reducing government spending? Spend less, much less (enough to cover continuing the tax relief) and deficits will go down. Tax cuts (continued ... not new ones) and deficit reduction. What is incompatible about this?
Monday, January 25, 2010
English Grammar's Slow Death
I was listening to NPR this evening on my ride home and, in the span of 5 minutes, heard three examples of an unclear antecedent. This particular problem caused me many lost points on English compositions in high school. Here is one of the quotes:
From "Marketplace" ...
Continuing with the theme here, you remember the phrase toxic assets from the good old days of the credit crisis? They are still around, and every time the government seizes a failed bank, we taxpayers own more of them.
So, do we own more toxic assets or more banks?
I don't expect perfect grammar in everyday use of the language, but one might expect that journalists, trained in writing, would spot such a simple error that can cause confusion and diminish the impact of the story by having listeners, such as I, focused on the structure of the phrase and not the content of the phrase.
From "Marketplace" ...
Continuing with the theme here, you remember the phrase toxic assets from the good old days of the credit crisis? They are still around, and every time the government seizes a failed bank, we taxpayers own more of them.
So, do we own more toxic assets or more banks?
I don't expect perfect grammar in everyday use of the language, but one might expect that journalists, trained in writing, would spot such a simple error that can cause confusion and diminish the impact of the story by having listeners, such as I, focused on the structure of the phrase and not the content of the phrase.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Airline English
Well, my business travel is over for 2009. I should have some time now to make some new entries. Today I was reminded of the knack that the airline industry has for butchering the English language. A couple of examples:
When I was walking through the "C" terminal at Dulles airport I heard "This is a last and final call for flight ..." I didn't think much about it until about 5 minutes later when the announcement was "Once again, this is the last and final call for flight ..." So, the first announcement was a lie, since the first was not the last. Then there is the need to have both "last" and "final" in the same sentence. I thought, in this context, last and final mean the same thing.
There is also the favorite announcement in the airplane: "Please remain seated until the plane has come to a complete stop." Is there any other kind of stop?
I know that there are several more of these abuses that the airlines are particularly adept at creating, I just cannot think of them right now. I know my English teachers from high school would be gasping at this uneducated and inefficient use of the language. For me, I just chuckle.
When I was walking through the "C" terminal at Dulles airport I heard "This is a last and final call for flight ..." I didn't think much about it until about 5 minutes later when the announcement was "Once again, this is the last and final call for flight ..." So, the first announcement was a lie, since the first was not the last. Then there is the need to have both "last" and "final" in the same sentence. I thought, in this context, last and final mean the same thing.
There is also the favorite announcement in the airplane: "Please remain seated until the plane has come to a complete stop." Is there any other kind of stop?
I know that there are several more of these abuses that the airlines are particularly adept at creating, I just cannot think of them right now. I know my English teachers from high school would be gasping at this uneducated and inefficient use of the language. For me, I just chuckle.
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Talking Heads
I have gotten quite fed up with most of the media outlets, especially the visual ones. Points:
The first bullet point is proven with recent coverage of the Northwest airline pilots fiasco, the "balloon boy", and, going much further back, runaway brides, WMD's, the Olympic Park bomber, etc. The media jumps on the first information, finds 8-10 seconds of video to play in a continuous loop, and finds some talking head to explain what has happened, even before the facts are out. There must have been six networks convinced that the Northwest pilots had simply fallen asleep. Then there were talking heads going on and on about pilot fatigue, airline cutbacks, and federal oversight - oh, and the aging air traffic control system. Two weeks later we find out that the pilots really were doing what they said, arguing over a Delta scheduling system (Northwest was acquired by Delta - typical problems with merging two companies) on their laptops. No fatigue at all.
Second, the talking heads. Fox News and CNN are great at this. They hire a bunch of retired whatevers (army generals, Newt Gingrich among cast off politicians, folks who work for "think tanks", and guys who have a consulting business that is essentially a contract with the networks) who come on and pontificate about their view of something. Fox is especially good a pitting two folks against one another (read as "fair and balanced") and letting them duke it out on air. Nobody changes the other's mind and it is more like a schoolyard brawl.
Third, this week really hit it for me, the "experts". ABC is doing an "investigative report" (I remember when these were really professionally done back in the 70's and led to the fall of a Presidency) on food safety: "What's in your food?" Yesterday it was beef. Today it was field greens. In both cases, the problem is e-coli contamination. They find some expert at some agency, usually a group for consumer rights, and let them ramble on about "we need more testing", "the government is not inspecting", "the companies only have voluntary compliance". These experts are idiots. It is impossible and prohibitively expensive to test everything. Also, since the testing is destructive, in order to achieve 100% test reliability, there would be no product to consume. For beef, they take hamburger patties at random and remove 8 sub-samples for testing. Frequency of testing was not discussed, but even for the patties tested, 8 small samples from a patty leaves a lot of it untested. Anyway, the consumer expert was upset because the meat was shown to be from 4 cows (genetic testing) instead of what she thought should be one cow. The producer defended his product. In order to get the right mix of fat and lean, different cuts of beef are used and blended to make the finished product. No big deal.
My real "beef" is that the expert is an idiot. Anyone who knows anything about quality management knows that finished product testing is inefficient. It is a disaster check only. True quality management, by the way this is required to get manufacturing costs down, is process driven. If the process is optimized and in-process testing is implemented, then the product will be high quality. As my German colleagues say ... end of story; full stop.
So, for the beef industry that means segregating sick and well animals, proper training of each employee on food safety, automation, temperature control, maintenance schedules, etc. For the greens grower it means testing of water used for irrigation, segregation of cattle land from fields, and all of the same things that the meat packer should do. Are there companies that try to skirt around this? Yes, and they don't survive long but they can harm people by not doing things right. So, spot check these companies and have them certified and re-certify often. Eventually it becomes culture or you close them down. Hefty fines works well too, especially if they are multiplicative: X dollars for the finding and Y dollars more for every day from the date of the problem (findings can be retroactive) until the problem is fixed. Under any circumstances, more testing, which seems to be the only answer the expert has, will not help.
The problem is compounded. Hopefully our younger generation is more news savvy, but way too many folks depend on network or cable outlets for "facts". They hear this tripe and then believe it and suddenly, you have a bunch of folks yelling at Congress to act and those nuts usually put on the whole show and make a mockery out of real science. It really seems to me that our national IQ is low into the double digits.
- It seems that most of the time the news media gets it wrong in the first several days of covering any story
- Each outlet has its own group of talking heads that it pays to give opinions
- Many experts are just wrong
The first bullet point is proven with recent coverage of the Northwest airline pilots fiasco, the "balloon boy", and, going much further back, runaway brides, WMD's, the Olympic Park bomber, etc. The media jumps on the first information, finds 8-10 seconds of video to play in a continuous loop, and finds some talking head to explain what has happened, even before the facts are out. There must have been six networks convinced that the Northwest pilots had simply fallen asleep. Then there were talking heads going on and on about pilot fatigue, airline cutbacks, and federal oversight - oh, and the aging air traffic control system. Two weeks later we find out that the pilots really were doing what they said, arguing over a Delta scheduling system (Northwest was acquired by Delta - typical problems with merging two companies) on their laptops. No fatigue at all.
Second, the talking heads. Fox News and CNN are great at this. They hire a bunch of retired whatevers (army generals, Newt Gingrich among cast off politicians, folks who work for "think tanks", and guys who have a consulting business that is essentially a contract with the networks) who come on and pontificate about their view of something. Fox is especially good a pitting two folks against one another (read as "fair and balanced") and letting them duke it out on air. Nobody changes the other's mind and it is more like a schoolyard brawl.
Third, this week really hit it for me, the "experts". ABC is doing an "investigative report" (I remember when these were really professionally done back in the 70's and led to the fall of a Presidency) on food safety: "What's in your food?" Yesterday it was beef. Today it was field greens. In both cases, the problem is e-coli contamination. They find some expert at some agency, usually a group for consumer rights, and let them ramble on about "we need more testing", "the government is not inspecting", "the companies only have voluntary compliance". These experts are idiots. It is impossible and prohibitively expensive to test everything. Also, since the testing is destructive, in order to achieve 100% test reliability, there would be no product to consume. For beef, they take hamburger patties at random and remove 8 sub-samples for testing. Frequency of testing was not discussed, but even for the patties tested, 8 small samples from a patty leaves a lot of it untested. Anyway, the consumer expert was upset because the meat was shown to be from 4 cows (genetic testing) instead of what she thought should be one cow. The producer defended his product. In order to get the right mix of fat and lean, different cuts of beef are used and blended to make the finished product. No big deal.
My real "beef" is that the expert is an idiot. Anyone who knows anything about quality management knows that finished product testing is inefficient. It is a disaster check only. True quality management, by the way this is required to get manufacturing costs down, is process driven. If the process is optimized and in-process testing is implemented, then the product will be high quality. As my German colleagues say ... end of story; full stop.
So, for the beef industry that means segregating sick and well animals, proper training of each employee on food safety, automation, temperature control, maintenance schedules, etc. For the greens grower it means testing of water used for irrigation, segregation of cattle land from fields, and all of the same things that the meat packer should do. Are there companies that try to skirt around this? Yes, and they don't survive long but they can harm people by not doing things right. So, spot check these companies and have them certified and re-certify often. Eventually it becomes culture or you close them down. Hefty fines works well too, especially if they are multiplicative: X dollars for the finding and Y dollars more for every day from the date of the problem (findings can be retroactive) until the problem is fixed. Under any circumstances, more testing, which seems to be the only answer the expert has, will not help.
The problem is compounded. Hopefully our younger generation is more news savvy, but way too many folks depend on network or cable outlets for "facts". They hear this tripe and then believe it and suddenly, you have a bunch of folks yelling at Congress to act and those nuts usually put on the whole show and make a mockery out of real science. It really seems to me that our national IQ is low into the double digits.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Carl Sandburg
Carl Sandburg famously noted that "Fog creeps in on little cat feet". Not so. This morning, fog lay softly like a fleece blanket, muting the sights of our neighborhood. The streetlamps had a Dickensian iridescence and you tried to squint to sharpen the view. Sounds of birds were amplified by the density of the air. Tall pines were decapitated as they faded into the mist. Gentle striations of droplets painted the scene with brush strokes and held the wafting incense of honeysuckle right at nose level.
This was in stark contrast to a scene from Tuesday night on my flight back into Charlotte. Puffed clouds of cotton batting illuminated eerily by the soft cast of the moon. Brownish red lightning dancing and darting within the thunderheads. The gentle buffeting of the plane in the masses of moving air and water. The light and dark contrasts of moonlight slicing through the stratified layers of clouds. The rhythmic pulse of the wing lights that grew blindingly bright as we passed through clouds.
Nature has a strange and peaceful beauty that gives us pause in our busy world.
This was in stark contrast to a scene from Tuesday night on my flight back into Charlotte. Puffed clouds of cotton batting illuminated eerily by the soft cast of the moon. Brownish red lightning dancing and darting within the thunderheads. The gentle buffeting of the plane in the masses of moving air and water. The light and dark contrasts of moonlight slicing through the stratified layers of clouds. The rhythmic pulse of the wing lights that grew blindingly bright as we passed through clouds.
Nature has a strange and peaceful beauty that gives us pause in our busy world.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Boxing with the media
Well, I never cease to learn new things. This week is was the rope-a-dope, burn and peal, punch and duck life with the media. I was totally disillusioned. There were folks calling for Obama's head, calling him a coward. The whole thing with the Maersk Alabama was a sham. The media did not know anything. They talked about some negotiations, but no details, When the dust settled, the media was a sham.
Reality ... the lifeboat was in tow. Media ... the lifeboat was drifting. Reality, the sharpshooters were in position. Media, the pirates were demanding millions of dollars. Reality ... the Navy took out the pirates. Media, the pirates were in control.
I lost all faith in the media. They were underinformed and merely trying to make headlines. They did not give any new information for many hours. They blamed the President.
In reality, things went as they should. The Navy was involved and got the President involved. The President authorized lethal force. Lethal force was ordered by the local commander. The hostage was saved.
The media was wrong, all along. Based on this, I have decided to stop watching the news.
Reality ... the lifeboat was in tow. Media ... the lifeboat was drifting. Reality, the sharpshooters were in position. Media, the pirates were demanding millions of dollars. Reality ... the Navy took out the pirates. Media, the pirates were in control.
I lost all faith in the media. They were underinformed and merely trying to make headlines. They did not give any new information for many hours. They blamed the President.
In reality, things went as they should. The Navy was involved and got the President involved. The President authorized lethal force. Lethal force was ordered by the local commander. The hostage was saved.
The media was wrong, all along. Based on this, I have decided to stop watching the news.
Thursday, March 19, 2009
Out of Control
The US Congress, especially the democrats, are totally out of control. They pushed through outrageous budget concepts that my kids will be paying for the rest of their lives. They pass a law allowing bonuses to be paid on 2008 contracts and then turn around, express dismay and tax these bonuses at 90%. What is to stop them. They have revived the welfare state that their icon, Bill Clinton, helped to dismantle. They are writing legislation that will destroy capitalism and drive business out of the country. They are taking over energy policy recklessly and doing the same with health care.
While Washington is legislating away, the President fiddles by making NCAA predictions, going on late night television, and pushing more of his social agenda.
Finger pointing, arguing, mock trials of all kinds.
Stop the train, I NEED to get off.
This is what happens when one philosophy has all of the control of government (see the warnings of John Adams).
While Washington is legislating away, the President fiddles by making NCAA predictions, going on late night television, and pushing more of his social agenda.
Finger pointing, arguing, mock trials of all kinds.
Stop the train, I NEED to get off.
This is what happens when one philosophy has all of the control of government (see the warnings of John Adams).
Thursday, February 19, 2009
The Right Stuff
I was watching a video that I got for Christmas on the history of the NASA manned spaceflight missions. I really especially love the early years ... the 60's. These guys were real risk takers. All of them from the astronauts, who, in these early years, were all test pilots, to the engineers. The average age for the front line personnel was 26 and the managers were in their early 30's. It is little wonder that they were willing to try so many things that would never be done now. At one point, they were launching crews every 6 weeks!
I remember a couple years ago, NASA was going to bail on the Hubble Space Telescope because it would require a risky space walk to fix the device. In the 60's we had guys tethered to the outside of the Apollo spacecraft coming back from each moon flight to retrieve the camera film. We had folks walking on the moon! We had to depend on one engine to start perfectly to keep from stranding folks on the moon.
The culture has grown up. Old guys run the program and everyone wants everything to be risk averse. We all need to go back and listen to the early test pilots. They had the right stuff. Now, it takes 20 years to figure out how to get back to the moon. It has to be risk free.
I remember a couple years ago, NASA was going to bail on the Hubble Space Telescope because it would require a risky space walk to fix the device. In the 60's we had guys tethered to the outside of the Apollo spacecraft coming back from each moon flight to retrieve the camera film. We had folks walking on the moon! We had to depend on one engine to start perfectly to keep from stranding folks on the moon.
The culture has grown up. Old guys run the program and everyone wants everything to be risk averse. We all need to go back and listen to the early test pilots. They had the right stuff. Now, it takes 20 years to figure out how to get back to the moon. It has to be risk free.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Congressional Idiocy
These "representatives" in Congress kill me. They are such pompous idiots. A few samples of their intellectual prowess:
They have been screaming at "big business" about using tax dollars for retreats to Phoenix or wherever while the entire democrat group went to Williamsburg, VA for a retreat ... on tax dollars.
They force a big company to not buy a corporate jet because they are using tax dollars. Well, the jet is made in the USA, is serviced in the USA, is piloted in the USA, is inspected in the USA, is landed in the USA with each step of the process involving US citizens who have and need to keep their jobs. So, they have this idea and it may put some jobs in jeopardy (especially at the luxury aircraft company) because the company would use tax dollars to buy this. Tomorrow, they are going to spend billions of tax dollars to put people to work. Why not let the company do that by buying a plane?
The exact same arguement works for the big banks redecorating their offices. Tax money should not be spent to ... hire decorators, millwrights, painters, upholsterers, etc.
These guys even have the nerve to tell folks they misspent the TARP funds when they never put any restrictions on what the funds were to be used for.
Oh - let's not forget they are mad at the Wall street bonuses for last year. Now, they forget that most folks on Wall Street have a low base salary and bonuses are part of their contracts based on the performance of the work they do. Bring in lots of business and you get a big bonus. Now, those making the bonuses spend a lot of that money to buy stuff (ie stimulate the economy). Without the bonuses, they will not spend. Genius. Why are passing the "stimulus" bill again?
The moral of the story is that only Congress knows how to spend money the right way to stimulate the economy.
I bet it won't work.
They have been screaming at "big business" about using tax dollars for retreats to Phoenix or wherever while the entire democrat group went to Williamsburg, VA for a retreat ... on tax dollars.
They force a big company to not buy a corporate jet because they are using tax dollars. Well, the jet is made in the USA, is serviced in the USA, is piloted in the USA, is inspected in the USA, is landed in the USA with each step of the process involving US citizens who have and need to keep their jobs. So, they have this idea and it may put some jobs in jeopardy (especially at the luxury aircraft company) because the company would use tax dollars to buy this. Tomorrow, they are going to spend billions of tax dollars to put people to work. Why not let the company do that by buying a plane?
The exact same arguement works for the big banks redecorating their offices. Tax money should not be spent to ... hire decorators, millwrights, painters, upholsterers, etc.
These guys even have the nerve to tell folks they misspent the TARP funds when they never put any restrictions on what the funds were to be used for.
Oh - let's not forget they are mad at the Wall street bonuses for last year. Now, they forget that most folks on Wall Street have a low base salary and bonuses are part of their contracts based on the performance of the work they do. Bring in lots of business and you get a big bonus. Now, those making the bonuses spend a lot of that money to buy stuff (ie stimulate the economy). Without the bonuses, they will not spend. Genius. Why are passing the "stimulus" bill again?
The moral of the story is that only Congress knows how to spend money the right way to stimulate the economy.
I bet it won't work.
Friday, January 9, 2009
I'm a Lumberjack and that's OK
On my way home two days ago I got a call from my wife saying a big tree fell down in our front yard and was blocking our driveway. We had winds around 65 - 80 km/hr (40-50 mph) all day following two days of drenching rain. I scurried home and there it was, a a 20 meter tall tree snapped off at about the 2-3 meter mark. Another one of our "glorious" short-needle pines that are so susceptible to the pine borers. This thing weighed a ton and we had to figure out how to move it so that we could at least use the driveway. There was one very long section that I cut into three pieces. The center part was the only one now blocking the way. There was no easy way to move it, though ... it weighed a ton. Finally I hooked a chain around it and pulled it some with the trailer hitch on my SUV (this is one good reason to have an SUV!). Finally we got it to where my son and I could roll it to the edge of the driveway where it still sits. I spent yesterday morning getting the top of the tree off my neighbor's brick mailbox (it survived nicely) and this afternoon I will spend part of a vacation day trying to cut up the rest.
I was amazed that nobody stopped to offer help (one neighbor did much later). In my old neighborhood we would have had 5-6 guys all over that tree with chain saws and it would have been fairly quick work. Nobody even stopped to ask what was going on. It caught me off guard, but I think I figured it out. Everybody in this "city" hires out everything. I guess they saw me working and thought I might be the hired help (folks in this place don't make friends easily). It was a bit eye-opening.
I was amazed that nobody stopped to offer help (one neighbor did much later). In my old neighborhood we would have had 5-6 guys all over that tree with chain saws and it would have been fairly quick work. Nobody even stopped to ask what was going on. It caught me off guard, but I think I figured it out. Everybody in this "city" hires out everything. I guess they saw me working and thought I might be the hired help (folks in this place don't make friends easily). It was a bit eye-opening.
Friday, December 19, 2008
Talking Heads
I got a bit riled up today when some talking head came on and said that now that the auto companies have a loan, they might finally wake up and make cars that people want to buy ... hybrids, not gas guzzlers. These folks always have an agenda and do not deal with facts.
Fact: many people like large cars and SUV's
Fact: not everyone wants to own a hybrid
Fact: GM is still the largest auto maker in the world
Fact: Toyota sales are down 30%
Fact: This is a market recession, not an issue with GM (or Chrysler) quality or product portfolio (the first is getting better and the latter spans all types of vehicles)
Fact: GM (and Chrysler) are victims of too many models & too high of a cost structure
Please stop trying to shove your agenda down our throats. The thought that having hybrids would have avoided this mess is ludicrous. With a million or so folks out of work, with credit on hold for all but the best of borrowers, the auto industry is in the tank, plain and simple.
Fact: many people like large cars and SUV's
Fact: not everyone wants to own a hybrid
Fact: GM is still the largest auto maker in the world
Fact: Toyota sales are down 30%
Fact: This is a market recession, not an issue with GM (or Chrysler) quality or product portfolio (the first is getting better and the latter spans all types of vehicles)
Fact: GM (and Chrysler) are victims of too many models & too high of a cost structure
Please stop trying to shove your agenda down our throats. The thought that having hybrids would have avoided this mess is ludicrous. With a million or so folks out of work, with credit on hold for all but the best of borrowers, the auto industry is in the tank, plain and simple.
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
English - a crazy language
Another observation of a phrase, similar to one I have had in a previous post ...
I heard an advertisement yesterday claiming that the product was "second to none". Wow. Seems to me that there is not much that could be worse than coming in second place to none. If there are no others and you come in second, that doesn't say much about you. It's kind of like losing an election to a dead guy.
I heard an advertisement yesterday claiming that the product was "second to none". Wow. Seems to me that there is not much that could be worse than coming in second place to none. If there are no others and you come in second, that doesn't say much about you. It's kind of like losing an election to a dead guy.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
Automotive afterthought
I heard today that, at the meetings in Washington, Ford noted that their sales were down 31%. GM is down 41%. Clearly they have a big issue. However, Toyota is down a third (33% last time I checked) and they are still moving forward. When you are not the low cost producer, you blow through cash more quickly than your competitors and will not last as long.
Maybe this auto problem is all wrong?
The big three auto makers saunter down to the Capitol today to beg for money from the American people via our elected "representatives"! Last time around, these CEO's caught a lot of flak for flying to Washington in private jets. The implication was that it was bad taste to beg after taking your private jet ... never mind that the jets belong to the companies. So, the talking heads and the politicians were pontificating on the use of these jets. Well, I don't normally come to the defense of the CEO's, but the trip was not about their use of jets, it was to get money from the people. The CEO's use the jets so that they can travel from smaller airports. This avoids delays, masks their trip routes to some extent (good when you want a deal to be kept from your competitors), and increase their personal safety (they are well paid and famous ...). All in all, this is a time, and, at their salaries, a cost savings especially since they have to pay for the jet even if it is not used (they could sell it, though). Anyway, so this time they are DRIVING from Detroit to Washington. That is a great use of their time.
So, the talking heads all say that the problem is that the car companies are mis-managed. They don't make the right products and their labor costs are too high, especially for retirees. I am looking at it a bit differently. They do make the right product mix. SUV's, that bad word, are not all gas guzzlers ... the hybrids were relatively fuel efficient, just not quite enough in production when we hit the skyrocketing gas prices over the past summer. They have small cars, but nobody normally wants them except as a starter car for a teenager. Only with the wierd market did we see a shift, and, again, the product mix was wrong. By the way, it was also wrong for the foreign cars (I don't call them imports since they are made in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc). Toyota heavily advertises its huge truck, the Tundra, and nobody seems upset by that (maybe the Sierra Club). So, timing may be bad, but they do have the right cars ... small, luxury, SUV, minivan, truck, etc.
They do have too many models. For General Motors, we have Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, etc. The Chevy is always the basic model, the Pontiac the sporty one, the Buick the luxury one ... all for the same basic car. Scale up a Chevy with options and you have a Buick with a slightly different paint scheme. Compare with Honda where you have Honda and Acura or with Toyota where you have Toyota and Lexus (I think) or BMW where all you get is a BMW. So, Detroit may have too many brands. Time to sink this concept.
Detroit also has a fast follower mentality. They want their cars to look like the Asian or European style, with a few notable exceptions (Mustang, Corvette). Without a unique style, they are just a "me too" offering, up against the still stinging reputation for having quality inferior to the Asian cars (whether true or not ... perception is truth to consumers).
Detroit has higher costs due to large distribution networks, labor costs, and retiree costs. If one generates a value curve for a business, if you have higher costs (that is you are not the low cost producer), you must bring more value to achieve preference. The value can be quality, safety, leading-edge technology, green philosophy, style, market leader for new concepts, etc. The big three are none of these and therein lies their demise.
So, the talking heads all say that the problem is that the car companies are mis-managed. They don't make the right products and their labor costs are too high, especially for retirees. I am looking at it a bit differently. They do make the right product mix. SUV's, that bad word, are not all gas guzzlers ... the hybrids were relatively fuel efficient, just not quite enough in production when we hit the skyrocketing gas prices over the past summer. They have small cars, but nobody normally wants them except as a starter car for a teenager. Only with the wierd market did we see a shift, and, again, the product mix was wrong. By the way, it was also wrong for the foreign cars (I don't call them imports since they are made in Texas, Tennessee, South Carolina, etc). Toyota heavily advertises its huge truck, the Tundra, and nobody seems upset by that (maybe the Sierra Club). So, timing may be bad, but they do have the right cars ... small, luxury, SUV, minivan, truck, etc.
They do have too many models. For General Motors, we have Chevrolet, Pontiac, Buick, Cadillac, Saturn, etc. The Chevy is always the basic model, the Pontiac the sporty one, the Buick the luxury one ... all for the same basic car. Scale up a Chevy with options and you have a Buick with a slightly different paint scheme. Compare with Honda where you have Honda and Acura or with Toyota where you have Toyota and Lexus (I think) or BMW where all you get is a BMW. So, Detroit may have too many brands. Time to sink this concept.
Detroit also has a fast follower mentality. They want their cars to look like the Asian or European style, with a few notable exceptions (Mustang, Corvette). Without a unique style, they are just a "me too" offering, up against the still stinging reputation for having quality inferior to the Asian cars (whether true or not ... perception is truth to consumers).
Detroit has higher costs due to large distribution networks, labor costs, and retiree costs. If one generates a value curve for a business, if you have higher costs (that is you are not the low cost producer), you must bring more value to achieve preference. The value can be quality, safety, leading-edge technology, green philosophy, style, market leader for new concepts, etc. The big three are none of these and therein lies their demise.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Turnabout ... is not fair play
Well, he is not in office yet and the tearing down is already in progress. I have watched, especially during the Clinton and Bush years, the process that the video, audio, and print media carry out to try to impune the character of our President. While sometimes quite humorous (comedians handle this so well), the mean spirited practice of burying a politician with his or her gaffs has gotten really old. This process can destroy someone's career or at least make them the laughing stock of the nation, unable to be taken seriously.
For the last 8 years, Bush has been belittled for his lack of command of English, and it moves the discussion from a serious one about the facts to a useless one about his bumbling. The shoe is on the other foot, now. Our newly elected President, in his first press conference after the election, made a gaff ... he mentioned that he had spoken with all the living presidents, quickly realized his error (he obviously meant "former" Presidents), and then clumsily tried to handle it with a quirky remark about Nancy Reagan and seances. So, it was mishandled, but give the guy a break. I did not vote for him, I don't like his politics, but I hate the media, now the conservative media, piling on over a gaff. We have serious problems and these folks are saying it was poor judgement, shows how mean he is, etc.
The new President handled it just fine, in the end. He did not apologize in public as politicians so often do. He called Mrs. Regan and apologized personally. Everyone will make gaffs. Let's start treating them as such, cut these folks some slack, and get down to discussing real issues.
For the last 8 years, Bush has been belittled for his lack of command of English, and it moves the discussion from a serious one about the facts to a useless one about his bumbling. The shoe is on the other foot, now. Our newly elected President, in his first press conference after the election, made a gaff ... he mentioned that he had spoken with all the living presidents, quickly realized his error (he obviously meant "former" Presidents), and then clumsily tried to handle it with a quirky remark about Nancy Reagan and seances. So, it was mishandled, but give the guy a break. I did not vote for him, I don't like his politics, but I hate the media, now the conservative media, piling on over a gaff. We have serious problems and these folks are saying it was poor judgement, shows how mean he is, etc.
The new President handled it just fine, in the end. He did not apologize in public as politicians so often do. He called Mrs. Regan and apologized personally. Everyone will make gaffs. Let's start treating them as such, cut these folks some slack, and get down to discussing real issues.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Economics 101 - a walk on the wierd side
I happened to think about this on the way to work this morning. During the recent gas shortage in Charlotte and the rise of gas prices in general over the spring and summer, everyone was bemoaning the almost daily price increases. I heard lots of folks saying "How can the value of gas that 'they' bought and keep in the ground go up overnight? It is the same gas that 'they' (the station owners) have already paid for!" Funny, now that gas prices are falling on a daily basis, I don't hear anyone asking the question in reverse.
It amazes me that there are so many people that do not understand the simple concept of something gaining value while you hold on to it. There seems to be no issue regarding the value of land or gold or stamp collections, though. It seems to only apply to gasoline. Hmmm ...
It amazes me that there are so many people that do not understand the simple concept of something gaining value while you hold on to it. There seems to be no issue regarding the value of land or gold or stamp collections, though. It seems to only apply to gasoline. Hmmm ...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
