Another letter to the NYTimes - Jonesers are in charge, damn it!

To the Editor:

How in the world anyone could argue that someone like President Obama, who was seven years old during the Summer of Love, has anything in common generationally with a bunch of grey-haired, tie-dyed, social-security-collecting retirees is beyond me (a 49-year-old). There is a new generation assuming its position of economic and political power. Generation Jones includes anyone born between 1955 and 1965, a generation with more people in it than the Boomers born between 1946 and 1955. We Jonesers danced to disco, knew no "free love", and remember exactly where we were and what we were doing when the space shuttle Challenger exploded (not when JFK was assassinated). The Boomers had their run, and now it's just about over. I wish they would do us all a favor and get over it - and themselves.

- In response to They Warned You About Us, NYTimes Style Section, 1/25/2009

Obama's inauguration speech (fantasy version)

Greetings, fellow Americans! Here we are, the change you said you wanted, the change we all need - is here, and it starts now. For the last six administrations the Boomers or their elders have been in the Whitehouse. While great changes came from these administrations, they also brought with them great excesses. Two years ago the first of the Boomers became eligible to retire, creating a flurry of news and concerns about how our country was going to cover the exodus of wisdom these new retirees created; and more importantly, how our nation was going to pay for social security benefits as the retiring hoards left the workforce and tax rolls, to become a burden on their children and those of us left behind them in the workforce.

Well, it turns out that 60 million boomers did not all retire at once - we knew that would not happen. It turns out that there is actually a larger, silent contingent of us, born between 1955 and 1965, who are not Boomers, who are going to be in the workforce for another 15 or 20 years. We are the Jonesers. We are in charge. And it is we who are going to make things right again in America.

Oooh - I like this: News as a public service

In today's NYTimes:

“Information is now a public service as much as it’s a commodity,” he said. “It should be thought of the same way as education, health care. It’s one of the things you need to operate a civil society, and the market isn’t doing it very well.”
- from NYT, 11/19/2008, Web Sites That Dig for News Rise as Watchdogs

Laid off journos are being redeployed by guerrilla startup news services aimed at covering very local news in order to keep corrupt local pols and businesses in the community spotlight.

OBAMA!

Enough said on that for now - he is in, and I could not be happier about being an American in the 21st century.

In an op-ed piece in the NYTimes Nick Kristof wrote entitled Obama and the War on Brains, in which he discusses the reinvigoration of intellectualism in our Whitehouse and ergo in our country after an eight-year drought. I share his sentiments overall, and was inspired to fire off the below posting on his blog. After re-reading I thought I'd add it to my own collection - as so often happens articles I read coalesce my thoughts about various topics and out pops something I like.

Could it be that historically speaking the reason intellectual leaders tend to live in the shadows of leaders with lesser grey matter gifts is because intellectual horsepower is negatively correlated with political eptitude :-) ?

I mean, how did a nincompoop, mental midget like The Shrub get elected to Governor and then POTUS in the first place? Sure he had some help from Daddy and oil-sodden friends in that great southern republic. But still, he had to get to the finish line and somehow he did - beating out intellectually superior opponents - twice.

I see this in in the workplace, too. Intellectuals assume forthrightness and honesty more frequently, I think, and therefore are easy prey for those who would use those qualities to advance their own agendas. Just a thought. Oops - there I go again - laying myself wide open for political assault. Story of my life…

I've been wanting to get that off my chest for a few years. Feels good.

935

935 - that is the number of lies that Bush and seven of his top officials made in the two years following the 9/11 attacks, leading the US into the war with Iraq, according to research conducted by two different independent agencies. A trillion dollars and 4000 lives later the war is still underway, and the damage to our nation's reputation globally is incalculable.

You can read more about it here: http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/ They are not making up the number. They are not playing with words or hyperbole. They are documenting the lies that are easily obtainable in the public record by anyone who cares to look.

We're not talking about lying about having sex with an intern here. We're talking about lying about a foreign nation's policies and actions, and using those lies as the basis for making a trillion dollar, 4000-life decision. Egregious. Heinous. The enormity (look that word up, folks - it doesn't mean large) of this administration's actions is on a par with just about any other evil propogated by a government in the last few hundred years.

And if you're wondering who the Center for Public Integrity is, just click on the "about us" link at the top of the page - you will find they are a non-partisan research group.

I am disgusted. This is disgraceful.

2nd Amendment (again)

So the NYTimes once again has an article about the 2nd Amendment. This one does a nice job of analyzing the syntactical structure of the Amendment, stating that the first part (about an armed militia) is a "purpose clause", while the second part is an "operational clause." The reason for the article is the Supreme Court is presently evaluating the 2nd Amendment and is expected to decide something about it shortly.

Here's the 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [purpose clause]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. [operation clause]

Waxing oratorical, I drafted up this note to the editors at the NY Times:

To the Editor -

The reason for ensuring people have the right to keep and bear arms being encoded in the purpose clause, the need for this right should rest on whether it can be stated that an armed citizenry is capable of ensuring our nation's security today.

Reminds me of my college days studying Cicero.

evhead: The Focus Paradox

RE: Focus

So EvHead wrote on his blog:

Both Facebook and Google had early success in (large?) part because of their focus. Google in terms of what they did, Facebook in terms of who could use it.

That success provided both pressure and opportunities to grow in new directions. Expansion is always tricky, and each company has handled it in different ways.

Discuss.

Reminds me of an article from the early 90s about the degree to which tech companies can successfully vertically integrate. For instance, in computers you've got

hardware components
hardware systems (ie, computers)
operating systems
middleware
software (apps)
content


The argument was that companies that tried to go farther than two levels above or below the one that was their core business would struggle. So take IBM. Core business initially was hardware. They also quickly got into components, like hard drives, which made sense for them. And they had to write their own O/S because no one else built the big boxes. Made sense. Same thing with some of the middleware apps, like DB2 (if that could be considered middleware). But look what happened when they tried to do software apps - when they bought Lotus. Notes could be considered a middleware app - it really is just a development environment, not an app. Most companies didn't appreciate that. But the real Lotus apps - 123, WordPro, and Freelance Graphics - are pretty much gone. IBM paid around $3 b for all this stuff, and couldn't make a successful run on Big Bill.

So....If I was Google or Facebook, I'd be thinking about the levels thing. First, what *are* the levels in the webworld? I've seen lists of them before, but I don't have them at hand. Then, what would represent "two steps" in either direction from search?

The Second Amendment vs. the wordsmiths

In Sunday's NY Times there was an op-ed piece entitled, Clause and Effect (NYTimes, 12/16/2007), in which the writer was discussing the effect of punctuation on the way our Supreme Court interprets the Second Amendment about the right to own and bear arms. After reading it I was inspired to draft up a letter to the editor, offering a different approach to the problem. Unfortunately my letter quickly ran past the recommended 150-word limit for letters to the Times, so I decided to post it here instead.

Greetings -

Glad to see that the Supreme Court has decided to take a look at gun control and the second amendment again - this alone fills me with optimism. Being somewhat of a wordsmith and a sometime punctuation pedant myself, I understand well the allure of debate around the phrasing our forefathers used in laying down the second amendment. Unfortunately I believe much intellection has been spent uselessly on this debate since it is impossible for anyone to know what, in fact, was in the heads and hearts of the authors when these 27 words (and the attendant two - or was it three? - commas) were written.

For purposes of application to our current society, would it not make more sense to attempt to understand first what was going on in America in the 1790s? It seems to me that once we are armed with an agreed understanding of the prevailing winds of the day we could have much better insight into what the authors were trying to address with their work. It would also allow us to ascertain the degree to which such conditions were still present today, and in need of addressing.

Do we have an agreed understanding of what they meant by "militia," for instance? What was going on in the late 18th century that caused them to think about having one? And based on that, why did they think it was so important to preserve the right of "the people" to own and bear arms? And which "people" do we think they were referring to, anyway? The police? Farmers?

The Constitution has proved to be one of the most prescient documents ever drafted in the history of humankind. For the most part, its language has proved durable and resilient, in spite of technological and social progress and evolution far beyond the authors' ability to posit. One thing that has changed significantly since 1790 is our place on the world stage. We have evolved from being an upstart, defenseless nation of religious and political dissidents, to the world's lone "superpower." As a thought experiment, consider a fanciful case of society of mice that through some magical transformation grew up to become a society of lions. One could well imagine the society of mice declaring their right to own and bear arms, to protect themselves against their many oppressors both real and imagined. With the magical transformation into lions, however, would not their original fears be completely eliminated?

While this case is obviously fanciful, it does in fact represent what has occurred to our nation. And it is understandable that the people of the day would have had no way of predicting our nation's transformation into its current position at the top of the world. Who'd a thunk it?

Perhaps we should enlist the help of a playwright to draft a stage play about the relevant characters and their conversations on this subject. It would be a period piece, complete with powdered wigs and odd turns of phrase. Yes, I can see it - this is what we need to engage the people in a proper, informed dialogue about one of our nation's most divisive and least understood issues.

Generations in the workplace and the changing nature of of war

Vietnam was the last great war fought according to the military theory known as Superiority. Under this theory of war, numbers are the key to victory. When we talk of "air superiority" we are saying that we can field a greater number of and/or more sophisticated aircraft than our adversary can, and therefore in a war of attrition, we will ultimately win. Kills are carefully recorded and tracked, for they tell the tale in a war fought under Superiority theory - remember the body counts being carefully reported (and sometimes guarded) during Vietnam?

Superiority theory of war goes back to the beginning of war - Napoleon, the middle ages, the Romans, WW I - all were fought according to this theory, which informed strategy and tactics (which did evolve a lot under this theory).

Then came Gulf I, and things were different. The citizenry no longer had an appetite for wartime losses, to the point that any level of loss was viewed as politically unacceptable. That and a smaller military armed with weapons born of the high-tech, information-based era provided us, the US, with a unique and distinctive advantage, especially in the air but also on the battlefield. And thus was born a new theory of war: Dominance. Under dominance theory each battle is planned and executed with the expectation that the enemy will suffer heavy losses, while we will suffer none. The only way this theory can be realized is if we have a technological advantage that our enemy cannot replicate. For the most part, ever since Gulf I, this has been the case. Stealth aircraft, UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles), laser-guided precision weapons, GPS, etc. plus the Joint Forces doctrine have all combined to give the US the ability to engage an enemy and, through the combination of maneuver and overwhelming force, completely dominate the battle theatre with a reasonable expectation of zero losses. This is Dominance theory.

So why am I prattling away on this? It occurred to me that in the workplace of today people may be bumping into generation-based issues. Understanding the shift in the theory of war that has taken place over the last 20-30 years may provide some insight into the dynamics that exist between the various generations. Vietnam was the last war that relied heavily on the strict hierarchy on the battlefield, and command and control from the rear. The book, Warfighting, talks about this shift in doctrine. Under the new doctrine (described in Warfighting), initiative needs to come from the front. Decision making needs to be turned over to the soldier with the rifle who is actively engaging the enemy. You combine that with Dominance theory and you have a very different mindset from the Vietnam era warfighter. And it spills over into the public arena, too. Especially the concept of zero-loss, and its heavy reliance on technology and information sharing and collaboration. This is a marked difference from the way combat operations were planned during Vietnam; and the way the general public thought about getting things done.

There is one last dimension of war in today's era that should be considered, and that is the notion of asymmetry. The 9/11 destruction of the World Trade Center, the bombing of the USS Cole, and other similar acts against the US performed by terrorists are all examples of asymmetric warfare. The asymmetry refers to the size and scope of the enemy as well as the tactics they employ - the good old days of the US versus the Evil Empire seem to be over. There is no distinct, bounded enemy embodied by a nation state. Instead the enemy is diffuse, and uses tactics that our military was never designed to counter. As a result the terrorists are able to incur significant damage on us. A parallel phenomena is observable in business and is really the basis of the high tech industry: two college drop outs toiling away in a garage with no funding somehow unseat established tech sector goliaths in the marketplace. This is another manifestation of asymmetry.

So how do these new realities shape the way younger people think about work? Strategy? Authority? Hierarchy? Innovation? Information technology? Product life cycles?

By the way, the book, Warfighting, is a military document in the public domain. You can buy it as a book on Amazon, or you can download it as a pdf here: http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/service_pubs/mcdp1.pdf . It is the same text in its entirety. Very good read (I bought and distributed at least a dozen of the books before I found the online version).

Nuclear power, and the lies the media wants us to believe

In an editorial published in today's Rochester (MN) Post Bulletin, op ed contributor Karl Grossman wrote about the dangers posed by nuclear energy. In response I submitted the following letter to the editor.

Sir - Mr. Grossman asserts that today's efforts to revive nuclear power are based on false premises. Unfortunately the premises he bases his argument on are themselves false. His first point is that building and operating nuclear power plants generates harmful greenhouse gases. He does not cite a source for his data, nor does he provide any indication of quantity. Would the quantity be more than, say, the amount of greenhouse gases generated by manufacturing, transporting, installing and maintaining an equivalent generation capacity in windfarms, for instance?

Secondly, referencing Chernobyl to support his assertion that nuclear power is inherently dangerous is nonsense that the popular media has used to mislead the public for long enough. For one thing modern reactor designs include passive safety features designed to shut down the reactor should things go wrong. More important, though, is the fact that the reactor at Chernobyl was housed in what amounts to a backyard polebarn, with no containment building at all. All the existing reactors in the US are housed in massive steel-reinforced concrete containment buildings, many of which are designed to withstand a direct impact from a jumbo jet. Had the Chernobyl reactor been built to the US standards in place at the time the loss of life would have been limited to those inside the plant (possibly none), and the subsequent radiation release would likely have been eliminated.

Mr. Grossman and much of the print media seem to be disinterested in reporting this factoid when referencing Chernobyl. Isn't about time the whole story was told?

regards,

2nd Amendment - so you can protect yourself from your government

At least, I think that's the gist of what Republican candidate Mike Huckabee bases his support for it on. He says this on his website:

"Our Founding Fathers, having endured the tyranny of the British Empire, wanted to guarantee our God-given liberties. They devised our three branches of government and our system of checks and balances. But they were still concerned that the system could fail, and that we might someday face a new tyranny from our own government. They wanted us to be able to defend ourselves, and that's why they gave us the Second Amendment. They knew that a government facing an armed populace was less likely to take away our rights, while a disarmed population wouldn't have much hope."

Wow. That may have been a realistic approach to the problem of fending off oppression by the incumbent government of the day, what with muzzle loaders being what they were. By ensuring the populace was allowed to be armed as equally as the government's soldiers, the balance of power between the Fed's forces and the farmers was roughly equal.

Sometime over the last 200 years or so this parity has eroded a bit. Yeah, Mac-10s, M-16s and AK-47s converted to full auto can certainly raise hell in urban gangland ruckuses. But does anyone really believe that if our government decided to mobilize the US military against its own people in order to...what? Fend off a coup? Overturn an oppressive president? Well - nevermind that. Like I was saying - if for some odd reason the US populace decided it was necessary to wage a war against our own military, does anyone actually think the commoners would have a snowball's chance in hell of winning?

Just watch one of those military marvels tv shows one night and take a look at the toys our military has at their disposal. And the training they receive on applying those toys to maximum effect. Now with all due respect to rednecks, gangsters, law enforcement types, and anyone else who feels they are pretty handy with a 9mm or .30-06, you'd have to agree that if it came down to y'all and the US Marines, for instance, you really wouldn't have much of a chance.

Meanwhile another 30,000 or so people will die this year from guns, including a large number of children.

If you want to argue that you have a right to own a gun because you believe you might need it to fight your government some day, well, as of late I can't say I blame you. I think you'd lose, badly, but I feel your pain. Maybe things will get better after the Shrub is booted out of the whitehouse, and someone with some sense is in charge.

Citizenship: America's great 20th century failing

I'm not talking about citizenship, as in the latest partisan argument du jour about our nation's Southern border and migration policies. I'm talking about citizenship the way it was used and taught in our schools back in the first half of the previous century - that now-nearly-lost-forever amalgam of habits, rules, and social norms that all served to temper a person's natural self-interest, forging behavior that somehow seemed to nearly always support "the collective" (that would be what used to be known as a community).

In perusing today's New York Times I see articles about a range of seemingly disparate topics:

• In the wake of the collapse of an interstate highway bridge in Minneapolis/St. Paul, it turns out that thousands of bridges in the US are in a similar state of disrepair. Officials are citing lack of available funds as one reason for it, along with local governments choosing to shunt off responsibility for footing the bills to their successor administrations;
• the world of sports being undermined by steroids, unscrupulous officiating, and unsavory off-the-field behavior (such as breeding fighting dogs);
• young and even pre- teens, pushed by over-zealous parents to focus on and excel in a single sport, seeking the help of psychologists to help them overcome mental blocks;
• families living in Silicon Valley communities with net worths over a million dollars, some in the several millions, feeling they need to keep working to keep up (with what it is not always clear);
• an editorial writer reacting to last week's article about medical costs and the way high salaries paid to doctors are a big part of the problem. The writer wanted to ask whether anyone thought his or anyone else's kids, who were capable of getting into med school, would do so if the salary for doctors was limited to a paltry $120,000 per year, the way it is in Europe;
• a recap of the week's news, showing how members of the President's cabinet, when asked to testify against Gonzales, invoked executive privilege in refusing to testify.

See the trend? No? In each one of these items there is a common theme. In some ways it will come as no surprise. The theme is greed. This should not be news to anyone over the age of about six years old, who can understand the concept.

What may come as a surprise (to some, anyways) is that greed is not the relatively harmless pursuit many of the over-achieverers or the other self-absorbed think it is. The bridge that collapsed killing a dozen or so motorists was caused by greed. And I don't mean some abstract, governmental notion of greed - I'm talking about the only kind of greed that truly exists: the greed of individuals. Leaders. People who are more concerned about maximizing their own little patch in this country than they are about the safety and well-being of those they were elected (and entrusted) to serve. For if I'm a local official and know about the need to spend extra dollars, but driving for that spending will either upset voters, or otherwise compromise my ability to do things that would get me even more votes, then I won't do it - even though it's the right thing to do.

And if I'm a professional cyclist training for the Tour, and I believe that using banned chemicals is the only way to be successful - and earn fame and fortune - then I will do it, even though I know it's wrong.

And if I'm a member of the President's cabinet, and I think I can save my hide by lying, or otherwise corrupting the proceedings against me or my administration, I will do it, even though I know it's wrong.

And if I'm a bright, school-minded teenager looking at career options, and doctoring doesn't pay enough, then I'm going to Wall Street, even though I really care about medicine, and helping people.

What in the hell has happened to us? When did we, as a people, stop caring about each other completely, and turn our focus so single-mindedly on ourselves? We have lost much of our understanding of what it means to be part of a collective; to be citizens who are part of one nation. We have forgotten what it was like to settle untamed wilderness, establish communities that banded together to fight the elements, ensure enough food to endure hard winters, and help each other build whatever the community needed to survive. In other words, maybe we've lost any sense of needing to rely on each other.

This is sad. It is frustrating. For a growing number of people the inequity of it all is infuriating. Marx predicted rebellion of the masses would be the outcome of a society that becomes too lopsided. Are we headed that way? Would that be a good thing? Is the war in the Middle East a well-considered diversion, intended by the current administration to keep attention off of the growing inequity and societal collapse inside our own borders?

I hope we can rediscover what it means to be a citizen again. I hope we can remember how important it was to our survival to be a part of "the collective." One suggestion: re-introduce the teaching citizenship to our children. Make it mandatory. I don't think that's enough, though. A lot of this starts at home - with parents whose values are communicated to their offspring as sure as day follows night. Wake up, people! We are doing this to ourselves.

A Gen Joneser's rant against being called a Boomer

John-John Kennedy was only three or four years old when his father was killed. And the image of this young boy saluting at the side of his father's casket is the only memory I have of that historic time, because I was four years old, too. I am not a boomer. Boomers went to Woodstock, burned their draft cards, had free love, and were the first yuppies. I was playing with Tonka trucks, watching Johnnie Quest, worrying about herpes and then AIDS, and wondering why I bothered going to college because it sure didn't look like there were many jobs available in 1982 when I graduated.

I was born in 1959, and am part of a cohort born from 1955 to 1964 that has about as much to do with boomer mores and cultural icons as Jimi Hendrix has to do with disco (the latter, by the way, was the music my generation was listening to when we "came of age.").

So create labels if you must; but please, leave me out of the Boomer group. I am a Generation Joneser - as in, "jonesing" for all the promises that were made to us, only to find out they were gone or otherwise unavailable by the time it was our turn. Oh, and in case anyone's interested, there are more of us than there are of those born in the previous decade.

Hey Madison Avenue! Are you listening??

A response to Stanley Fish's article in the NYT

Stanley Fish's article entitled, The Three Atheists, appeared in today's NYTimes. In it he reviewed three recent books on the topic of the irrationality and danger of religious faith. After reading his opinion piece I was moved to write my own comment on the subject, which I've reproduced here. I've been wanting to say this for a long time. Fish's article was just the trigger I needed, I guess.

_____________________________________________________________

That man has evolved a faith-based system of beliefs is not surprising - so many things which effect his livelihood and survival have been mostly out of his control for so long, it’s perfectly understandable that as a rational species we would evolve a super-being to whom we could plea for assistance. Farmers and hunters have forever been at the mercy of nature’s systems, whose mechanisms even now are poorly understood.

Even atheists must surely find themselves “hoping” for something to happen in their favor once in a while. From there is it not a short step to fashion some sort of mysterious being who, if not omnipotent, can at least tune in to our brain’s broadcast frequency and receive its signal? And then “hopefully” act on our request? It’s this second part, especially, that requires some kind of faith - in a power greater than ourselves, and, more to the point, greater than our limited understanding of the workings of nature would allow.

And so there’s the rub. Centuries of momentum are carrying us and our blissful ignorance merrily along the war-torn road strewn with IEDs, even in the face of dramatic advances in scientific knowledge and the education systems for its dissemination. Is it not fair to say that a fifth grader (third grader?) is educated to a level that would have exceeded all but perhaps a handful of the most highly educated people available in the 18th century?

The good news is - somewhere along the line we discarded the pantheon of gods from our polytheistic days, and settled on just a single god (or three or four - if you consider each of the major religions having a different one) in a monotheistic belief system.

I remain hopeful (to no god in particular) that we are now short steps away from humanity finally coming to the realization that the notion of retaining one last god of their choice is no less fanciful, and no more rational, than the belief system of the ancient Romans and Greeks, with their Hera and Zeus atop Mount Olympus.

— Posted by tom short

An Artist's Spark

Maybe what makes artists different is their ability to keep alive and visible to the world the spark that fires their soul, and the light that shines from it becomes their work.

I was musing on this as I left a meeting, and reflected on the things I left unsaid, the thoughts and feelings I had that remain unheard. They were sentiments that came straight from the flame in my soul. Why couldn't I let them out? What prevented me from giving them their due? That's simple: politics and business sense.

Having just been beat up for being a bit too real with my colleagues, I found myself editing my thoughts, even ones that seemed to me quite relevant.

And so perhaps this is the deal we all make - we keep the spark hidden, and the glow of our soul never sees the light of day, never shines for others to see. And at some point, for many folks, I suppose, it just sort of dies out.

So the challenge is, to keep the spark alive, to keep the flame aglowing, and to let that fire my passions and vision without leading to my destruction.

Razor Scooter Racing - new way to stay in shape?

[This was originally written as a series of posts on the CCS Forum, a discussion board for motorcycle roadracers. You can visit the forum here: http://www.ccsforum.com ].

It may seem hard to believe, but Razor scooter racing may be one of the best things you can do for off-season training. If that sounds crazy, or you think I'm pulling your leg, read on.

I bought my now-3.5-year-old nephew a Razor for his b-day this past summer so he could try to keep up with his two older sisters. In November Mom and Dad (his grand parents) hosted Thanksgiving at their house which is located on a small cul de sac. Only instead of the circle being wide open, it's got land in the middle of it, you know, like an oval race track.

So being a good uncle, and wanting to take full advantage of the 65 deg thanksgiving weekend weather, I thought I would encourage my neph/godson to take his Razor out for a lap around the "track" so he could show me his riding skills. His sisters joined in, and the next thing you know, I've got the three of them lined up and listening to me as I explain the basic rules of roadracing. Fifteen seconds was about all the time I had before one of them took off, the other two in hot pursuit.

After about, oh, five laps, Jake comes around and pretty much falls off his Razor into the grass, exhausted. Score one for Uncle T with the sister-in-law .

My nieces still had some gas left in them, and they cheered me on to join in the fun - "C'mon, Uncle Tom, you try it!" Wondering whether the tiny-looking device would hold up under my turkey-laden decidely-unchild-sized body, I hesitated for a moment, and then decided "what the heck." Caroline even offered to adjust the handle up for me, so I didn't have to race in a nearly-doubled-over hunch. So there we were, Caroline, Jennifer and I lined up and ready to launch. Caroline was assigned double duty as not only racer, but starter.

"One-two-three-GO!" And we're off. No one provided any details regarding race length, much less allowable equipment mods. But we were off like a shot anyway, and 8-year-old Caroline and younger Jennifer were both giggling with glee as we headed down the slight incline on the hole-shot toward T1, with Caroline clearly in the lead. I thought about dropping under her and stuffing her in the corner and started kicking harder, but still couldn't catch her. Coming off T1 (or NASCAR 2) the downhill becomes an uphill, the finish line is at the apex of T2, and it looked like Caroline was going to hold her lead.

But power ends up giving me the edge and I gain on her as we cross the line, and now it's half a scooter length as we head back down the hill. She's laughing at me, now, and taunting me - "I'm faster than you are, Uncle Tom". Between gasps I manage to sputter out to her, "There's more to racing than going fast."

Coming off T2 (NASCAR 4) I begin using some race strategy - I'm next to her on the inside, so I start walking her out toward the curb. I know she won't push back too hard - I'm bigger than her (hey, she's got nearly 40 years on me - I figure it's fair). Then as we head into T1, I dive in for the apex and exit wide, maintaining corner speed and flying up the hill. She's trying to follow, but runs wide, loses all her mo, and starts struggling up the hill to catch up.

At this point I could've just checked out, but I thought, what fun would that be? I'd end up exhausting myself, and have no more racing while I'm doing it. So I backed off a bit. And Caroline starts shrieking that little girl shriek - it's not really a scream, more like a giddy shrill squeal. This time she chooses an inside line coming off T2 so I can't walk her to the curb again as we head down the hill into 1. Smart girl. "You won't beat me now, Uncle Tom," she cries.

So she's got the inside and she's feeling pretty good about taking the corner and leading me up the hill. But this one is an easy one. She's got the inside line, and sets up for more of a radius turn, while I flare wide so I can dive into the apex, take a wide exit, and preserve the all-important mo as we head up the hill. And as a bonus, just for grins, I figured I could hit the apex tight and pinch her off to boot! MMMMWWWUUUWWWAAAHHH....(I know, I am an evil sh*t).

And it works - perfectly. I mean, Rossi perfect. I am a god. Poor Caroline is confused and demoralized. She can't understand how her ancient uncle could possibly be pulling her up the hill, with a clear lead and no hope now of recovery.

I figure it's a good learning opportunity for her - maybe upon further reflection she will - hopefully sooner than later - grasp the full meaning of the old saw I left her with: "Age and treachery generally overcome youth and enthusiasm." She collapses in the grass, I raise my arms in triumph, and make my way to the pits, chuckling to myself - "evil, Uncle Tom. Truly evil." But it sure was fun.

And then my older sister, Maggie, pipes up - hey, Tom, want to have a try with me?

"Uh oh" I say to myself. I've now got several laps in, and I'm feeling it a bit. Fortunately I've been mountain biking a good bit, so I at least have some conditioning. But that, alas, will be of little use to offset what my sister Maggie is bringing to the table. Although three years my senior, my sis happens to be an aerobics instructor. And marathoner. And, most recently, triathlete. Yup. And, altho she has no racing experience, she got the same competitive gene that I have. So this is going to be interesting.

The five board comes up, and she takes off on young Caroline's pink Razor, going for a couple warmup laps and checking her set up. The bars on these things are adjustable, and max high seems to work best for anyone over about four feet tall. Maggie figures this out quickly.

And now the one board is out, and Caroline is the starter, and we're off - it's a clean start and we're both pushing like mad as we head down the hill into one. I give Maggie the holeshot, figuring she's going to walk me up the hill and leave me in the weeds. "Man is she strong," I think to myself as I puff up the hill.

But I notice a bit of a wobble in her turning technique - she still hasn't gotten comfortable in the turns on these things - not surprising - they're kind of twitchy.

So on the second lap I power down the hill, not even worrying that she's on the inside line. I keep it wide and give one almighty push just before I tip it in and head for the apex. This propels me right over the top of her - she was slowing way down for the turn so we never even came close to colliding. Meanwhile I've got both feet on the scooter deck, and I'm just sailing, carving a nice, smooth arc around the turn. Then it's max power as we head up the hill. And she is toast. She can't believe it. I can't believe it. "How did you get up that HILL so fast?" she begs to know. "It doesn't look like much, but, man, it takes some oomph out of you to get up it."

I just laugh. "There's two things you need to know about racing, Mag. First, you need to know about going fast. And second, you need to know about racing!"

"Huh?" she asks. I just laugh. I'm done for the day, and as I give Jake his scooter back I have a big boy-was-that-fun grin on my face that's usually reserved for pitbike racing in the dirt on race weekends. I also realize how much my right thigh is burning from the isometric workout I just had - and what a workout it was. May have to organize some more of these races - just might keep me in shape during the off season.

Steal This: Fat Monitor

When the subject of weight and dieting come up, most people look at me and comment on how "in shape" I am. This is not a brag. And like many others who receive such compliments, I believe they really think that, but I personally know "the truth." Which is, I am in ok shape. But I still could shed 5-10 lbs from my gut and I'd be a lot happier with how I look.

So I moderate what I eat, and I exercise a bit, and try to walk places rather than drive or take public transport. But that gut just doesn't go away. You all know what I'm talking about - anyone who has ever tried to drop a couple pounds knows how difficult it is. And I can't say I understand what some people must have to cope with, trying to drop 30 or 40 or 100 or more. Can't imagine what that must be like.

I do know for my own self that one of the challenges to losing weight is knowing how much food is the right amount of food to eat at any given time. My present strategy involves guesstimating how much food it would take to sate me at a meal, and then trying to cut that in half, and eat a more limited amount. I do this because I've learned that about a half hour later I'm going to feel "full." And if I don't go for the half, and instead munch down the whole burrito (or whatever), it'll slip right down while I'm enjoying it, but in about a half hour I'll feel like I just swallowed a bowling ball. Not good.

But even with my halving strategy, I still find I am creeping up on the waist line, and I really don't like it. So what to do?

Well, what if I could monitor some bodily statistic throughout the day that would tell me whether the current food intake level was in the "gain", "hold" or "lose" range, weight-wise? You know, the way a diabetic monitors their glucose level using one of those electronic monitors with a drop of blood. What if I could see the numbers behind what my body is doing with the food I have eaten thus far in the day, and then gauge what I eat next based on those numbers?

I do this when I work out - with a heart-rate monitor. Gets to the point where I can tell what my heart rate is without looking at the readout, based on how hard I'm breathing, and what I'm feeling.

I really believe that if I could monitor whether my body was getting fatter or thinner in realtime throughout the day I would learn how to eat the right amount all the time, rather than guessing and halving, which is not working that well - but it's better than nothing.

Anyone know of a technology that can do this? Does it exist? Is it physiologically possible??

Postscript: on further research, I found a science journal article related to this published on the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition website. It is entitled, Biomarkers of satiation and satiety. It appears researchers are asking this question and finding some ways of providing answers. It also appears that a definitive answer does not yet exist. Stay tuned!

Steal This: Hearing aid + Bluetooth cell headset = ?

Have you noticed how the makers of hearing aids are responding to boomer vanity by advertising ever-more invisible versions of their product? And guess what? Phil Specter-loving, wall-of-sound-listening, turn-it-up-to-11-concert-going Boomers are going to need hearing aids, make no mistake about it. But they sure don't want anyone to know it.

On the other hand, I see people of all ages walking around with flashing blue contraptions stuck to the side of their heads making them look like some kind of freakazoid escapee from one of those nutty space serials on tv. Far from trying to hide the fact that they have this thing stuck to their head, these people seem to be trying to show off the fact that they have their head wirelessly connected to their cell phone (or is it an iPod?). "Look ma, no hands."

So...why not build one that does both? As long as there are a fair number of folks who think it's cool to walk around with this humongous electronic growth stuck to side their head, why not incorporate a hearing aid into it? Or, just build a hearing aid, flashing blue lights and all, that looks like one of these bluetooth rigs, but really is just a hearing aid?

Then you could be hip and deaf, and no one would be the wiser. Just a thought. Hello? Oticon? You there?

Big Green - A story from the future

IBM recently hosted Innovation Jam, a 72-hour web-based multilogue aimed at generating ideas for innovations in government, finance, sustainability, etc. One of the ideas was for IBM to move into services and consulting around something dubbed Big Green Services (a play on their informal moniker, Big Blue).

A technique called scenario planning is a useful way to encapsulate the richness of an idea without fully describing it in detail. I like playing with scenarios and decided to take a shot at writing one that would provide a sort of future vision of what Big Green Services might look like. This can be useful as a way of then determining what things need to be happening now, if the future vision is going to be realized. So here's my story from the future:
=============================================

Big Green Services: A story from the future
By: Tom Short © 2006

In 2007 IBM signed partnership agreements with the five largest energy utilities in the US to develop, sell and deliver energy conservation solutions across six targeted industries, plus residential. With energy prices skyrocketing and consumers becoming increasingly agitated with the attendant rise in prices and little corresponding rise in wages, the Fed and most State governments lined up with the new partnership, so that by 2008 there were matching incentives across the board to support the integrated energy conservation solution offerings that IBM and its various utility partners had jointly developed.

Now, in 2012, the wisdom of these pacts is easy to understand: energy savings equivalent to 10 new nuclear units are directly attributable to the partnership. Significant reductions in consumption and deep-computing-based approaches to grid operations management have put off major investments in transmission grid expansion, resulting in further cost savings for rate payers.

The future looks even brighter, since the joint IBM-utility partnership joined forces with Europe, Japan and Russia in a concerted effort to solve economically feasible fusion leveraging IBM's considerable research capabilities. Proof of concept is expected by 2014, and if all goes well, a prototype 100 MW unit could be operating by 2016.

The combination of the utilities' experience with transmission and distribution operations, and familiarity with customer needs, combined with IBM's world-class service-based business model were what made it all possible.
___________________________________________________
Originally posted on the IBM Global Innovation Jam Wiki
site, September, 2006.

=====================================

Interestingly enough, I just read a news feed this morning about a multi-nation consortium that has pulled together funding to push fusion research ahead. Will be interesting to see what their timing is. Here's the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6165932.stm

Update: 12/07/2006: http://www.poweronline.com/content/news/article.asp?docid=b133d3d5-8219-4a1c-8be2-a8bf2408f126