Unintended Consequences

Ironically, a company’s loyalty programs, presumably intended to promote customer loyalty, may cause the opposite.

Of the numerous hotels I’ve stayed in during my career, I’ve had a preference for the Hilton brand. Not sure why, but if I had a choice and the rate was reasonable, I’d generally pick Hilton. Marriott was second on my list, judging by the points I accumulated with both chains.

Five years ago, I switched jobs. In my current role, I don’t travel as often, and I work with a group of loyal Marriott customers. If I’m traveling with any of them, I usually end up in a Marriott brand hotel room.

Several months ago, I received an email from Hilton saying if I didn’t stay at one of their brands within a few months, I would lose my remaining points. Was that a marketing policy to encourage room nights or an accounting policy to reduce liabilities on the balance sheet? Nonetheless, I didn’t have a business or personal reason to book myself into a Hilton, other than doing so to save my points.

I’ve done the airline mileage run a few times to maintain status, but that was years ago. I’m past the age where airline or hotel status means that much to me.

So I let the Hilton points expire.

I still have a healthy balance of Marriott points and every reason to maintain my  presence at Marriott, as those points will yield free room nights one of these days.

With zero points at Hilton, there’s no reason for me to be loyal — no more or less than any chain other than Marriott.

Hilton saved a few points and lost a long-time customer. I wonder if that’s what they wanted.

Leaking government secrets: patriotic?

This past week we learned that a 29-year-old systems administrator working for the NSA -- actually working for Booz Allen, under contract with the NSA -- leaked classified information about two government programs to access telephone records and Internet traffic. (More about this story here.) Both are part of the government's efforts to combat terrorism and, arguably, make us all safer.

The counter argument is that the government is accessing massive amounts of personal data that should be private, violating the Constitution's protection against unreasonable search and seizure. From this perspective, the leaker and the two newspapers that published the material (The Guardian and The Washington Post) serve the public interest.

My brother Warren, a journalist, has been "debating" the issue with a few of his colleagues, copying me on the back and forth. The discussion stimulated me sufficiently to chime in. To wit,

I'm old enough to remember Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, yet too young to recall the details to be able to discern the parallels and differences with this incident.

Nonetheless, from my vantage point on the far side of the elephant, I think the disclosure is beneficial for (hopefully) starting a public debate on the rights of the government to sweep our personal data. The Supreme Court borrowed from Donald Rumsfeld when it declared that you can't sue for what you don't know. Now we know what we didn't know, and I see where the ACLU has already filed suit.

Despite the administration's declarations of transparency, one cannot disclose a secret without losing one's security clearance and likely going to jail. So even before Congress, the system requires one to lie, rather than tell the truth. The only way for the truth to out is through leaks. Ironically, while the public and the press benefit under our First Amendment rights, the leaker will likely go to jail.

Last point: I don't agree that this disclosure will compromise national security. I have long assumed that we have the capability, technologically, to read and listen to most any conversation that interests the government. For a terrorist to be surprised by this disclosure suggests a high degree of naivete; just look at the precautions taken by Osama Bin Laden to avoid creating a digital trail.

Sorry, one more last ironic point: while we worry about the Chinese companies like Huawei and ZTE providing equipment for our telecommunications networks, the threat is really the "lowly" IT guy.

Paying it backward

Zoe Goodell, working the drive-through window at the Exit 6

Starbucks in Nashua.

Feeling the holiday spirit, my daughter Andrea pulls into the drive-through lane at Starbucks, planning to pay for the person behind her. She’s surprised to find that someone ahead of her has the same idea, so her skinny vanilla latte is gratis.

A couple weeks later, after the holidays, she receives the same generosity. However with no one behind her, she can’t reciprocate.

Paying it forward — actually backward through the drive-through lane — is a common event, according to Judy Johnson, manager of the Starbucks at Exit 6 in Nashua. During December, these random acts of kindness happen every day. And they continue throughout the year, just not as often.

“Sometimes it only lasts a couple. Sometimes it goes on and on and on,” Judy says, recalling that the longest sequence at the Exit 6 store was more than 20 cars. She attributes the motivation to people just wanting “to do something nice for someone, a random stranger.”

Those who haven’t experienced someone buying their coffee are surprised. A typical reaction, Judy says, is “Do I know that person?”

The baristas like to have fun with the experience, sometimes adding a hint of intrigue to the generosity — telling a woman that the guy in the car ahead bought her coffee, then watching for the reaction.

Zoe Goodell, a barista at the Exit 6 Starbucks, works the drive-though and sees this parade of kindness firsthand. “I think it’s really great when people pay for each other.”

When the person at the window is buying a $2 coffee and the car behind has a $20 order? Usually the sequence stops. But the generosity invariably restarts, Judy says, when someone pulls up to the window and offers to pay for the next order, sometimes saying they want to repay a prior act of kindness.

While most of the action occurs in the drive-through, patrons inside the store — Judy calls it “the cafe” — will occasionally buy coffee for each other. She says that doesn’t happen as often, nor last as long.

Why the difference between the drive-through and the cafe? Maybe it’s that the drive-through is “quick and easy,” Judy says, or perhaps it’s the anonymity. Aren’t we taught that giving anonymously is a high virtue? Reflecting that, perhaps, sometimes a cafe customer will purchase a gift card and leave it with the store, to buy as many orders as it takes to deplete the value.

Judy invites me to personally witness this display of human nature. So I arrive at the Exit 6 Starbucks shortly before 8:00 on a Monday morning.

I wonder if this is the best day for such an experiment, two days after winter storm Nemo traverses New England, closing 450 of the 500 Starbucks in the region. Will customers be in any mood to be generous, after this disruption in their lives and on a Monday morning? Perhaps sensing that people may be on edge, Starbucks is offering patrons a free tall coffee until 11 am.

Judy has me don the signature green apron and positions me near the window, where I can observe and listen to the conversations.

Zoe and Jen Donnelly are working the drive-through, performing a graceful ballet of constant motion. Both wear headsets. Zoe talks, Jen mainly listens and responds to the orders. As customers speak into the intercom in the drive-through lane, fingers fly over the touch screen and the two young women silently prepare the drinks, at times asking one of the other baristas to bring food from the refrigerated case in front, sometimes going for it themselves. As each car pulls up, Zoe opens the window with a friendly greeting, accepts payment, and carefully hands the order to the driver.

Judy checks to ensure we have a line of cars, scans the various orders on Starbucks’ version of an air-traffic-control radar, and selects one to start the pay-it-backward game. I offer to pay for the order, but she shakes her head.

When the car pulls to the window and holds out a $5 bill, Zoe cheerfully informs the driver that the driver in front has paid for her order. Surprised and pleased, she hands the $5 bill to Zoe as a tip, not offering to pay for the next car.

“That’s unusual,” Zoe says.

Judy scans the orders and starts the process again. When Zoe tells the driver the person in front already paid, the response is a blend of curiosity and pleasure.

“Oh they did?”

But no offer to reciprocate.

The snow is beginning to fall. Judy heads for her desk in the back. Nemo disrupted their weekend, and she needs to catch up. I pull out my Starbucks card. Zoe picks another car, and we try again.

The next driver, hearing the news, pauses. “What’s the guy behind me getting?”

Zoe responds with I can’t recall what. But the total is only $2.45. He pays it backward.
The next car, informed that the driver in front paid for the order, looks forward. “Who was he, or she?”

With no car behind, there’s no way to pay it backward. “I’ll pass it on somewhere,” he says and drives off.

A driver orders a tall coffee. Zoe informs her that it’s free because of the snowstorm. That is unexpected and causes a long pause. “Oh. Okay. Thank you.”

We start again. An older woman arrives at the window. She is obviously surprised, maybe even stunned. “This is the first time someone ever paid for my coffee.”

One man, told the order behind is $3 more than his, breaks the chain. Another, whose order is $2.67 pays $8.07 for the car behind with no hesitation.

We can’t seem to get momentum, and I’m losing track of the numbers and the details of each transaction. My pen is almost out of ink.

“This is the last” I say to Zoe, again handing her my Starbucks card. Amazingly, we get a run of six cars, each driver showing surprise and pleasure. Reflexively, they immediately look to see who is in the car in front, seeking recognition. The lack of connection makes a connection.

The seventh car pulls to the window. Zoe smiles and says the person in front paid for her order. She looks forward toward the car pulling away, says “oh,” smiles — and doesn’t offer to pay it backward.

As I leave the store and walk to my car through the falling snow, I realize that the real benefit of my $11.50 investment in this experiment is not the total number of cars without a break. It’s each individual’s experience of receiving a small act of kindness, like the woman who exclaimed that no one had ever bought her coffee.

Perhaps even more than the surprised patrons, the baristas enjoy the whole experience and the part they play. Their faces light up talking about it. “I love when that happens,” says Erin Peña, another barista at the Exit 6 store.

As Judy explains, “We play along. It creates a camaraderie in the store.”

Still trying to understand the psychology, I ask my daughter her motivation for buying someone’s coffee. She emails me that “the first time was pure holiday spirit. I was feeling cheerful as Christmas was approaching and really wanted to put a smile on someone's face. However, after that first experience, I believe that I was even more compelled to do it, secretly hoping that if the ‘game’ had not been being played before I drove up, I could at least start it. In both scenarios, I wanted to make someone happy.”

The pay-it-forward phenomenon is not unique to the Exit 6 Starbucks. Erin, who worked at the Leominster, Massachusetts, store before transferring to Nashua, says it happens in the drive-through there. Searching YouTube reveals several TV news reports about the trend, including the story of one Starbucks in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, where the pay-it-forward sequence lasted over an hour and totaled 100 cars.

Across the nation, one person at a time, spending a few dollars for a random act of kindness.

Note: This is the second of two articles I wrote for the news writing class I took at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications this winter. Meg Heckman, formerly a reporter with the Concord Monitor and now pursuing her master's degree at Northeastern, taught the class.

Flatley adds apartments, retail to technology park

Neighbors gather to hear construction update and plans

Note: This is one of two articles I wrote for a News Writing class taught by Meg Heckman at the Nackey S. Loeb School of Communications. It was a great class, as Meg shared her tested experience as a reporter, conveyed with an enthusiasm for journalism. The Loeb school makes such learning very accessible to the community, offering a range of classes on journalism and social media, most free.

January 26, 2013 -- Approximately fifteen people from the Lancashire Heights neighborhood in south Nashua turned out Saturday afternoon to hear the progress and plans for the development of the Nashua Technology Park, now renamed Gateway Hills. Dick Cane, Director of Planning and Development for the John J. Flatley company, briefed the group on the development project, which is adding apartments and a strip shopping center to the current office park.

The Flately company owns 400 acres in south Nashua, located to the west of the Everett Turnpike and north of Spit Brook Road.

“No one knows we’re here,” said Cane, stating that the office buildings are largely hidden from drivers on the highway and Spit Brook Road. That made it challenging to lease the three buildings Flatley purchased from HP in 2007. Despite the soft economy and the lack of visibility, the company has leased over 500,000 square feet, and the buildings are now over 90% occupied. Flatley is planning construction of another 240,000 square foot R&D building, perhaps as early as this year. The companies in the existing buildings are well-known technology firms: Amphenol, Aspentech, Benchmark Electronics, Dell, and Skillsoft.

Apartment construction

What largely drew the neighbors to the meeting are the new apartments being constructed parallel to the homes on Chaucer Road in Lancashire Heights. Called Tara Heights, the first phase consists of five buildings that will house 180 one- and two-bedroom apartments and a clubhouse. Rents will range from $1,150 per month for a one-bedroom apartment to $1,600 for a two-bedroom corner unit. Cane said tenants will begin moving in during May, with the last building occupied in September.

The second phase of apartment construction will add 140 units and extend the complex eastward towards the Everett Turnpike.

The apartments are separated from the neighborhood by a 300 foot buffer, and no streets connect the site and the neighborhood. A gravel emergency road, required by the Nashua Fire Department, will provide emergency access to the complex from Shakespeare Road in the neighborhood. However, the emergency road will be blocked by a chain to prevent traffic.

Cain said that construction required “a lot more blasting for utilities than we assumed” due to the amount of granite in the area. John Cepaitis, who lives north of the apartments, at 16 Shakespeare Road, told Cane that he and his wife have found cracks in their foundation and inside along the fireplace. Although the blasting firm took photographs of the homes adjacent to the apartment site, to be able to determine whether the blasting caused damage, Cepaitis’ home was not included in the survey, since it does not face the apartments. According to Cepaitis, although farther away, his house sits on a granite ledge, possibly making it susceptible to damage from the blasting.

Strip retail

In addition to the apartments, construction of a strip retail center along Spit Brook road is well underway, following clearing of trees and leveling of the land last summer. The five-building site will include medical and dental offices, a coffee shop with drive-through, dry cleaner, hairdresser, what Cane called a “small dining” establishment, and possibly a bank or other financial institution. Only the medical and dental offices have been leased, according to Cane, and the coffee shop has provided a letter of intent.

Cane said the design of the retail center is upscale, with clock-tower architecture and the use of earth tones. He said the Flatley Company wants to create a good first impression of the Gateway Hills development, and the retail site is the most visible.

The company’s vision is that the medical offices and retail businesses will serve the people living in the apartments, many of them working for the companies in the technology park.

Outlook

Several proposed road extensions within the development need to be approved by the Planning Board or Zoning Board of Adjustment. According to Cane, these will be presented during the February and March board meetings.

Looking longer term, Cane believes only the southern 260 of the 400 acres owned by Flatley will be developed over the next three to five years. He doesn’t see the northern section being developed sooner unless a company needs space that can’t be accommodated by the existing site.

Within the 260 acres, he said that Flatley may construct a hotel to serve the companies in the area and provide an alternative to the existing, castle-looking Radisson, which Flatley doesn’t own.

Lame-Duck Congress

Can this lame-duck Congress redeem itself and deal with the looming fiscal cliff?

The roles haven't changed: the Republicans still control the House, the Democrats the Senate, and President Obama was reelected to a second term. But perhaps, hopefully, the election sent a message to our elected officials that it's time to reach across the aisle and find bipartisan solutions to the nation's financial challenges.

In that spirit, today I sent the following email to my New Hampshire delegation, Speaker Boehner, Senator McConnell, and Senator Reid:

As you return to Congress following the 2012 election, I urge you to take the necessary steps to avoid the fiscal cliff, reduce the debt, and ensure the long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare. 

To accomplish this challenge, I believe spending must be reduced – defense included – and tax revenue increased. The latter should include increased tax rates, on the most financially fortunate Americans, and reductions in tax deductions.

No sacred cows or rigid ideologies. Please leave your political affiliation at the door and approach this vital work as an honest broker.

A recap of the 2012 election

Before the echoes of the convention speeches, the attack ads, and the chattering television pundits fade to silence, I want to reflect on the election.

I voted to reelect President Barack Obama, overturn the Republican majorities in Congress and the New Hampshire House and Senate, and elect a Democrat to replace Governor John Lynch. While my goals weren't fully realized – the Republicans remain the majority in the U.S. House and New Hampshire Senate – I am pleased with the outcome and hope we will have a more effective government than the past two years.

This election is notable because I voted a straight party ticket for the first time in my life, although I still label myself an Independent. I have always weighed each race and voted for the candidate I felt would best fill the position. Until this election, that philosophy yielded a mix of Democrats and Republicans. Political parties have seemed a necessary evil and straight party voting has been anathema, so this election is an indication of a sea change in my view of the political landscape. So, before I forget, what drove my votes?

1. The Economy

The thesis of Mitt Romney's campaign argued that Barack Obama was responsible and accountable for the poor performance of the economic recovery, that the policies pursued by the Obama administration were ineffective – even hindered the recovery.

The steps taken by the Bush and Obama administrations at the beginning of the Great Recession, in the fall of 2008 and early 2009, decelerated the downward spiral and positioned the economy to recover. Government policies notwithstanding, I believe the slope of the recovery has been equally influenced by forces around the globe: the fiscal crisis in Greece, the malaise in Europe, the depressed housing market in the U.S., the caution of the banks as they seek to restore their balance sheets, and the bankruptcy and recovery of the auto industry.

I have no way to know whether a "pure" Republican response to the crisis would have yielded better results. However, I suspect that had GM and Chrysler not undergone a government-imposed bankruptcy and restructuring, the economies of Michigan and Ohio would be in far worse shape today. I don't believe the free market, as it was functioning in 2009, would have provided the capital, had the power to restructure the debt, nor moved as quickly to save the companies.

The growing U.S. debt is a concern and certainly must be addressed. Yet my college economics class and listening to various economists over the years leave me with enough belief in Keynesian theories to conclude that reducing debt by cutting government expenditures can stall an economic recovery. I think Britain and Greece are examples. Blaming the Obama administration for growing the debt during the past four years seems unfair. I suspect John McCain would be just as guilty, had he won the 2008 election.

Considering the state of the economy, I saw no basis to criticize President Obama's performance and vote for Mitt Romney.

2. Healthcare

Next to the economy, the Republican's second talking point was the repeal of Obamacare. Their original argument to "repeal and replace" simply changed to "repeal," with no discussion or, in my opinion, intent to replace.

The Affordable Care Act certainly has flaws, and the process that passed it exemplified the metaphor of making sausage. The very silver lining to that cloud, however, is we now have a framework for providing health care insurance to most Americans, with a balance to the historically punitive power of the insurance companies in the "free" market.

For very personal reasons, I'm not willing to start over; I have no faith that under a Romney administration we would see reasonable access for all Americans – even within my lifetime. That would be a moral failing, as the U.S. is the only developed country that doesn't provide comprehensive access to health care. Seeing the statistics on cost and medical outcomes, we can't even argue we have the best system for our society (meaning not just fortunate individuals).

President Obama overwhelmingly won my vote on this issue.

3. Social Values

I find it odd that while Republicans decry the role of government in our lives, they feel justified in defining the social values that everyone should live by.

Same-sex marriage most resonates with me, as I see it as a human rights issue, comparable to the civil rights struggles that played out on the TV screen of my youth. The Republican majority in the New Hampshire House unsuccessfully attempted to overturn same-sex marriage this year, arguing that the prior legislature had no right to make it legal. Of course, that was based on the religious belief that same-sex marriage is "wrong," that marriage should only recognize a relationship between a woman and a man. The 2012 Republican platform also states this position.

That's not my religious belief, and I don't want that imposed on the same-sex couples I know and respect and love. I don't want that sanctified loving relationship, nor the legal protections it affords, denied to any gay or lesbian couple.

Other values were debated during the campaign, including abortion, access to contraceptives, funding for Planned Parenthood. On all of them, I sided with President Obama and the Democratic candidates running for Congress and offices in New Hampshire.

4. Candidate Mitt Romney

No doubt Mitt Romney is a smart and decent man, despite portrayals of him being an unfeeling oligarch. I do respect his business experience and success, and the pragmatism that requires. That's not what concerned me.

Rather, I couldn't determine his political leanings from the course of his campaign. During the primaries, he tacked to the most conservative side of the party, calling himself a "severely conservative Republican governor" during one of the debates. Once he had the nomination, though, he tacked back toward the center, sounding like the most moderate person in the first debate with President Obama.

Who was the real Mitt Romney and how would he lead the nation? I wasn't willing to take a chance voting for him, with a hope that he would govern as a moderate. On this point, I voted against Mitt Romney.

5. Bipartisanship and Compromise

Washington has been in gridlock the past two years, since the Republicans assumed control of the House following the 2010 election. There's no better example of this than the bickering over the debt and raising the debt ceiling, the failed Congressional debt commission, and the resulting fiscal cliff that looms at the end of the year.

I am critical of President Obama for not adopting the work of the Simpson-Bowles Commission as a baseline plan to address the debt. Politically, I recognize that had he embraced their dramatic approach, he would have created a target for the Republicans, whose mantra is spending cuts with no increase in taxes.

Despite the possible missed opportunity, the President and House Speaker John Boehner almost crafted a deal, until it was scuttled by the conservative members of the House. That led to the failed Congressional debt commission and now the ticking time bomb of sequestration, which I've heard the New Hampshire Republican delegation repeatedly decry. Ironically, sequestration is linked to their own unwillingness to compromise on increasing tax revenue – which would violate their pledge to Grover Norquist.

While I'm not so naive that I would argue the behavior of the Democrats in Congress is pure, I find greater fault with the Republicans. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's admonition rings loudly in my ears:

The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.

I think the Republicans in the House and Senate have worked to that end, employing the strategy articulated as just say no, and betting they would win the Presidency.

President Obama won my vote by the Republican Congress losing it. However, I struggled a bit voting against Charlie Bass. I respect his independence and willingness to vote against his party on various issues. He's a model for all of our elected representatives. Unfortunately, he's only one voice among many Republicans who don't seem to share his philosophy. So I voted for Ann McLane Kuster.

The Outlook

I'm very encouraged by the outcome of the election in New Hampshire: the House has flipped from Republican to Democratic majority and Democrat Maggie Hassan will replace John Lynch. I think we will have a more balanced agenda.

During the President's second term, we'll see the implementation of Obamacare and can begin to address the inflating cost of health care. I'm not worried about backtracking on social issues. I hope, fervently hope, that we'll see the bipartisan statesmanship to truly address the debt and long-term viability of Social Security and Medicare.

With President Obama reelected, Mitch McConnell's goal is no longer relevant, making me hopeful that Congress can break the partisan gridlock, despite the same majorities in the House and Senate. The most pressing issue is dealing with the fiscal cliff. I urge the lame-duck Congress to address this and not kick the proverbial can to the next Congress.

These next six weeks should be very interesting.

Romney compliments Israeli health care

On his recent international trip to demonstrate his foreign policy credentials, Mitt Romney, the assumed Republican presidential nominee, complimented Israel's health care system — at least the cost and outcome. As reported by the Washington Post's Wonkblog, Governor Romney said

Our health care costs are completely out of control. Do you realize what health care spending is as a percentage of the GDP in Israel? 8 percent. You spend 8 percent of GDP on health care. And you’re a pretty healthy nation. We spend 18 percent of our GDP on health care. 10 percentage points more. That gap, that 10 percent cost, let me compare that with the size of our military. Our military budget is 4 percent. Our gap with Israel is 10 points of GDP. We have to find ways, not just to provide health care to more people, but to find ways to finally manage our health care costs.

Ironically, the Israeli health care system is funded through taxes, imposes a mandate for everyone to participate (through taxes), provides access to all citizens (regardless of employment or income), and controls health care costs with government involvement in physician contracts and capping hospital costs.

Measured by two outcomes — child mortality and life expectancy — Israelis do better than Americans.

Given all the bashing of Obamacare, particularly following the Supreme Court ruling, it's ironic that Mitt Romney would choose to highlight Israeli healthcare. Their results surely reflect the construction of their system.

During the development of what became the Affordable Care Act, the Christian Broadcasting Network produced this profile of the Israeli health care system. It provides a good overview of the key attributes and notes pros and cons compared with the American counterpoint.



If you want more on Mitt Romney's remarks and the resulting reaction, here's another article.

More on health care

A few more thoughts about the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act:

This gentleman called in to Diane Rehm's Friday News Roundup yesterday to describe the difficulty of obtaining health insurance under the present system and why the Affordable Care Act offers hope. His story is touching and compelling and the core issue our Senators and Representatives should be solving.


This family's story isn't the only example.

A colleague is getting divorced and is concerned that his soon-to-be-former wife won't be able to get health insurance. She doesn't work and likely has what the insurance companies would consider a pre-existing condition.

I recently explored forming my own consulting company and getting health insurance for my family. The state's major insurance company said they would not underwrite my daughter until 10 years past her last surgery.

Those against Obamacare seem largely focused on the supposed government takeover of the health insurance industry — such claims seem hyperbole to me — and what the government can and cannot tell citizens to do. I just wish they would be as passionate about the moral issue of ensuring access to health insurance for all Americans.

Supreme Court upholds the health care law

I was pretty sure the Supreme Court was going to strike down the Affordable Care Act, given the uproar about the provision or mandate requiring people to buy health insurance coverage. That the Court didn't and that Chief Justice John Roberts joined — nay wrote — the majority opinion brought tears to my eyes when I heard the breaking news yesterday morning.

We live in a politically polarized country, so it is not a surprise that those who oppose the health care law — dubbed Obamacare — immediately called for the law's repeal. House Majority Leader Eric Cantor promises a vote on July 11, when the House returns from recess. And House Majority Leader John Boehner is almost apoplectic in arguing that the only reasonable course is for the law to be "ripped out by its roots."



While it's far from perfect — can anything designed by committee be even close to perfect? — the Affordable Care Act is a positive step forward in successfully addressing the major health-care issue this country faces: access to health insurance. And it attempts to limit the rising cost of health care.

I think we need to give it a chance to work and then improve it. And I felt compelled to say so to my Republican Senator and Representative:

Congress passed the law. The President signed it. The Supreme Court upheld it. 

Now let us see how it works and then make improvements based upon experience – not hypothetical concerns or political ideology. 

To state that you want to repeal the law without offering a specific, comprehensive alternative is irresponsible, in my opinion. The Affordable Care Act, despite its shortcomings, provides a means for Americans to have health insurance without denied coverage due to preexisting conditions and the risk of rescission, with serious illness. To help address the increasing cost of medical care, the law contains several provisions, including emphasizing preventative care and limiting the amount insurance companies can spend on administration and marketing. 

Rather than hurting economic growth, I believe ready access to health care that is not tied to employment will actually stimulate entrepreneurial activity, new business creation, and job growth. 

It’s a travesty that America is the only developed nation without universal access to health insurance. I believe we have a moral obligation as a country to solve that problem – which the free market has been unable to do on its own. 

So let’s suspend the rhetoric and give the law a fair chance to work.

Read the Supreme Court's full ruling here.

The role of management

I like this blog post on the role of management by Joel Spolsky, author of the blog Joel on Software and the CEO of Stack. I like it because Joel's inverted pyramid reinforces my idea of servant leadership.

In my view, the role of the leader is to articulate the vision, recruit a talented team that is passionate about achieving the vision, and then help the team surmount the barriers on their quest for the vision.

Leadership is not about power and feeding the ego. Leaders approach their role with humility. As stated in The Tao of Leadership,

Enlightened leadership is service, not selfishness.

Materialistic individualism is undoing us

I recently read Michael Lewis' enlightening and sobering article California and Bust in the November issue of Vanity Fair. He explores the financial crisis facing many communities, triggered as the Federal and state governments "solve" their financial woes by cutting expenditures and leaving the shortfall with the cities and towns. While this isn't fair, the cities and towns are not blameless, having made unsustainable financial commitments to their public sector employees over the decades.

Lewis portrays dire situations in San Jose and Vallejo, California, that are similar to the events in Wisconsin and Ohio and Rhode Island and Alabama and who knows how many other states and cities. The financial calamity began with the implosion of the housing bubble that froze the liquidity of the capital markets and created record and prolonged unemployment. Tax revenues are down while the costs of the social safety net are up, yielding unconstitutional deficits for the states and municipalities.

To eliminate deficits, you either cut expenditures, raise taxes on those who still have revenue to contribute, or blend the two. This dichotomy has become the ideological argument cementing the gridlock in Congress.

Looking beyond the political drama that fills the cable programs, Lewis points to the deeper cultural and moral issue exposed by the recession:

Americans knew exactly what they wanted to do, from the top of the society to the bottom. They’d been conditioned to grab as much as they could, without thinking about the long-term consequences. Afterward, the people on Wall Street would privately bemoan the low morals of the American people who walked away from their subprime loans, and the American people would express outrage at the Wall Street people who paid themselves a fortune to design the bad loans.

During my lifetime, I've observed that the rugged individualism that forged America has shifted to a materialistic individualism, exemplified by the sardonic bumper sticker: He who dies with the most toys wins. (Contrast that with Jesus' admonition: It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Matthew 19:23-24.)

The purpose of life in our consumer culture seems to be to amass as much wealth as possible and use it to acquire as much as we can. In addition to breeding entitlement and narcissism, materialistic individualism leads to conflict and traumatic pain when the economic system can no longer support the largess.

So airlines go bankrupt, and pilots lose their pensions. Retiree health care costs make the price of a new car noncompetitive  Pensions and benefits for public sector employees command an unsustainable share of tax revenues. Health insurance co-pays and deductibles rise year after year.

Amid the frustration and fear of an impending train wreck, the Tea Party emerged, finding government the root of the problem. Occupy Wall Street blames the wealthiest Americans — the so-called 1%. The rights of collective bargaining and tenure for teachers are challenged.  Economists argue for increasing the retirement age, an idea no politician will endorse.

These events are the collective result of our individual beliefs and actions. We are too focused on our personal desires, not considering the larger society we live in and unwilling to sacrifice our interests for the common good. We keep reaching for more and feeling justified — entitled — to do so. As Michael Lewis aptly diagnoses, the problem isn't just them, it's us.

The purpose of a business

“We should think of revenue as the way people think of breathing; it’s necessary for life but it’s not the purpose of life.” — Twitter CEO Dick Costolo

Amen.

Making money is not the purpose of a business. Making a profit is necessary to sustain the enterprise, to reinvest in the future and provide a return to those who have invested the capital to launch it. But it's not the raison d'etre, the vision of the founders.

Too many companies forget this along the way.

A meteorological journal of the mind

I'm listening to a fascinating audio course on the Transcendentalist Movement and the role it played in American history. The movement is inextricably linked to Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau, so the course focuses on their lives, world views, and the important roles they played.

Both Emerson and Thoreau wrote journals where they noted their observations of the world and developed the thoughts and ideas that later took form in their essays and books.

I like their characterization of these diaries as meteorological journals of the mind. Seems an apt description for this blog.

Debt Ceiling drama continues

Despite meetings, proposals, votes, and lots of talk behind closed doors and before TV cameras during the past week, the gap seems to have widened between the President and the Republicans in the House—even between the President and his own party. Yesterday, the debt ceiling talks dramatically fell apart, apparently prompted by Speaker Boehner and punctuated by dueling press conferences.

The President said his proposal was “extraordinarily fair” and justified his position, in part, by the heat from his fellow Democrats and interest groups, protesting the proposed cuts in entitlement programs. President Obama testily asked if the Republicans would agree to anything. Speaker Boehner claimed the President “moved the goal posts” by asking for $400-billion more revenue late in the discussions, what Republicans say is a tax increase and is simply not negotiable.

The President demanded that the leaders of the House and Senate meet with him at the White House this morning. He expects them to advise how they intend to raise the debt ceiling.

Depressing.

While we definitely need to reduce our escalating debt, I don't believe it should be done solely by cutting expenditures. Reasonable increases in revenue, either by reducing or eliminating tax deductions or increasing certain taxes, should be part of the strategy. The Republican House is obstructing such a balanced resolution to adhere to their pledge of no new taxes.

Their position reminds me of the aphorism:

Don't let your principles keep you from doing the right thing.

Unfortunately, I think the principle of lower taxes has become a rigid ideology, and I'm afraid the country is going to suffer.

I expressed my concerns via a couple of Twitter posts earlier today.

Here's that last paragraph from President Lincoln's first inaugural address:

We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.

If I were in Washington today, I would go by the Lincoln Memorial to see if there are any tears in his eyes.

Debt Limit

So far politics trumps statesmanship, as the Republican-controlled House doesn't appear willing to compromise with the President in finding a mutually acceptable path to raising the debt ceiling.

Despite admonitions from credit rating agencies and China, everyone's sights seem focused on the 2012 election, rather than defining the best fiscal path for the country.

My usual optimism is eroding.

Nonetheless, to do what I can to influence the situation and relieve my increasing anxiety and frustration, I put fingers to keyboard (the modern version of pen to paper) and sent the following to Eric Cantor (the pivotal figure in the House), Speaker John Boehner, New Hampshire Representative Charles Bass, and New Hampshire Senator Kelly Ayotte:

I write to urge you to seek a compromise that will 1) allow the debt ceiling to be raised before the August 2 deadline and 2) not enable further erosion in the confidence of the U.S. Government. We already have the basis for a solution in the recommendations of the Bowles-Simpson commission.

To believe the debt can be comprehensively reduced by simply cutting spending and not raising additional revenue strikes me as ludicrous and an unreasoned adherence to ideology. I also find it somewhat hypocritical that the Republicans are pushing so stridently for cuts in spending, when the debt rose from $5.8-trillion at the end of FY2001 to $10.0-trillion at the end of FY2008, under a Republican President and when the Republicans substantially controlled Congress.

Please don't play politics. Do focus on the best outcome for the American people.

Why I hate politics - one more example

A scene from the latest political theater:

Republicans and Democrats are battling over the budget. Republicans want to cut spending to trim the deficit and to align the government's policies with their own philosophies. Among the lightning rods: Planned Parenthood, which receives some $360-million from government grants and contracts (per Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report) and provides abortions (although, by law, federal funding cannot be used to provide abortions, so the federal dollars are used in other areas).

Jon Kyl, U.S. Senator from Arizona, made the following statement on the floor of the Senate:

If you want an abortion, you go to Planned Parenthood. And that's well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does.

However, Planned Parenthood's 2008-2009 annual report shows only 3% of its services are abortions (see pie chart).

When the discrepancy was pointed out to Senator Kyl's office, they advised that the 90% figure was “not intended to be a factual statement.”

Just what is that supposed to mean? If we were arguing over a few percentage points — Kyl said 95% and the number was actually 91% — then Kyl's argument is valid. But the difference is between the implications of totality and minimal. Kyl's number is not even in the ballpark.

To not issue a substantive correction reeks of politics and a lack of integrity, so much so that I felt compelled to submit the following message to Senator Kyl's web page:

Senator Kyl,

Shame on you for grossly misrepresenting Planned Parenthood's services and then having the audacity to defer any correction by stating that your statement was not intended to be factual.

While I respect (although disagree with) your opposition to abortion and Planned Parenthood, your tactics reflect a disappointing lack of integrity — especially considering you are a United States Senator.

Respectfully,

Gary Lerude

Fortunately, in this 24x7 cable news and Internet age, Kyl's misleading statement and clumsy parry have generated considerable commentary and satire (see below). Bowing to the pressure, Kyl has revised his remarks in the official public record. No apology, but the “well over 90%” phrase is long gone.

Religion - a Force for Good?

Question

"Do you think, if religion were extinct, the world would be more or less loving?" asked Rev. Meg, Senior Minister of The Church of the Larger Fellowship

My Answer

I think religion can be a force for good in the world. However, religious institutions, like all institutions, can become self-righteous and, without limits to their power and self-interest, betray the ideals at the nucleus of their formation.

Move to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire

Two New Hampshire legislators, David Bates and Leo Pepino, have each introduced a bill to repeal the legality of same-sex marriage in the state, barely a year after it became legal. HB 437 and HB 443 are now with the House Judiciary Committee, which has scheduled a public hearing on both for February 17.

Fortunately, it's easy to send an e-mail to the committee members, which I did, expressing my opinion and recommendation:

I write to oppose HB437 and HB443 and any other proposed legislation intended to repeal same-sex marriage in New Hampshire.

Homosexuality exists and is not a life-style choice. As such, gay and lesbian couples deserve the same freedom to marry as heterosexual couples. This is a moral right that is consistent with the ideals of our nation and state, as articulated in the Declaration of Independence and New Hampshire's own motto.

That society has not recognized same-sex marriage until now is no justification for maintaining an ancient and outdated tradition. After all, the same argument was made for preserving slavery and disenfranchised women. Society must continue to evolve, ever widening the circle of freedom and justice to include all people.

As a heterosexual who has been married for over 20 years, I don't see same-sex marriage as any threat to my marriage, nor to the institution of marriage.

I have been heartened that my children's generation regards sexual orientation like hair color: no big deal and certainly not the basis for bestowing society's rights and privileges. And I fervently hope that their legislators will exhibit the same enlightened view.

Senate joins House to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In what seemed an unlikely outcome until just days ago, the Senate this afternoon passed a repeal of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, restricting "known" gays and lesbians from serving in the military. As the House previously approved the change in policy, the legislation immediately goes to the President for quick signing and then implementation. Thankfully, 8 Republicans joined 57 Democrats to approve the bill, 65 to 31.

As expected, New Hampshire (NH) Senator Jeanne Shaheen (Democrat) voted in favor of repeal. Retiring NH Senator Judd Gregg was apparently absent or did not vote. Unfortunate, as this was an opportunity to end his Senate career on a high note, as I wrote in an e-mail to him, sent earlier in the day:

Senator Gregg,

I hope you will enhance your legacy as a Senator by voting to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT).

As you know, gays and lesbians are serving honorably—and dying—in our armed forces, defending the American principles of freedom and justice. Yet we don't provide them with the same freedom and justice, instead insisting that they keep their sexuality secret and live without the integrity of being who they are.

Defense Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen support repeal of DADT. The Pentagon has thoughtfully studied repeal, and Secretary Gates has clearly stated that repeal will mean a considered transition to the new policy.

If DADT comes before the Senate before you retire, I hope you will cast a vote supporting our gay and lesbian service men and women. That's far more important to your legacy as a Senator, to being a compassionate human being, than following the Republican policy line.

The Federal debt and extension of the Bush tax cuts

Republicans in Congress have refused to extend long-term unemployment benefits unless the $33-billion cost does not add to the Federal debt, meaning other programs are cut. To add interest to the debate, yesterday the government released the latest employment data, showing the unemployment rate rising from 9.6 to 9.8%.  WSJ report here.

In a parallel universe, the Republicans are holding to their position to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all Americans, not just those earning under $250,000 per year as advocated by President Obama. The Christian Science Monitor calculates the cost of this tax break for the upper income earners at $68-billion per year.

Does this inconsistency seems hypocritical to you?

It sure seems that way to me — enough that I penned the following to send to Representative Boehner (House Majority Leader in the new Congress) and Senator McConnell (Senate Minority Leader):

On the one hand, you decry the defict and debt and say we cannot afford extending benefits for the unemployed — even with the unemployment rate rising. 

Yet you argue that tax cuts for the wealthiest in the nation should be extended -- $68-billion annually that would reduce the deficit or pay for the $33-billion extension of unemployment benefits. 

Your position sure seems hypocritical and pure politics, certainly not representing the best interests of our country.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is recommending the repeal of the Clinton-era Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy restricting gays and lesbians who have come out from serving in the military. Read his statement to the Senate Armed Services Committee here.

Senator John McCain is opposing repeal, at least at this time, as noted in his opening statement at the same Senate committee hearing.

Frustrated by the Senator's position — perhaps a lightning rod for my impatience at the terribly slow progress in affirming gay and lesbian rights — I posted the following comment on Senator McCain's web site:

Senator McCain,

I am very disappointed by your position on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

You ask whether this is the appropriate time, whether repealing the current policy is premature.

I ask what the men and women of our armed forces are defending if not the rights of all of our citizens to fulfill their potentials — including those who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender.

Only over the recent span of my adult life have I seen this nation begin to recognize and affirm the rights of gays. I am thankful that my teenage children hold none of the biases and pejorative assumptions that were prevalent when I was their age.

I have faith that those in our services who have concerns will respond to the "better angels of our nature" with appropriate leadership and education.

Senator, I ask you to help provide that leadership and support Defense Secretary Gates' recommendation to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."

The Juan Williams affair

NPR terminated news analyst Juan Williams this week, after he appeared on Bill O'Reilly's program on Fox News and spoke of his fears seeing Muslims in airports.

I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.

These words sparked the controversy, yet if you watch the whole segment, I think you'll see that Juan Williams was also attempting to caution Bill O'Reilly from making sweeping generalizations about Muslims.



Surprisingly, Juan Williams' dismissal initiated a huge backlash against NPR. Not surprisingly, especially two weeks before the mid-term election, NPR's decision provided fodder for long-time critics who see the outlet as a voice for liberals. Beyond the predictable criticism, many were upset that NPR's move was an abrogation of Williams' right to free speech, particularly when characterized as not being politically correct.

There are many dimensions to this controversy, and I don't see either NPR or Juan Williams as clearly right or wrong. I am dismayed by the knee-jerk reactions and lack of thoughtful reflection to see the whole truth that both share pieces of. I don't have the time or energy to develop and articulate my views now, but I will share a posting I wrote for the NHPR web site:

Unfortunately, much of the criticism of NPR's termination of Juan Williams reflects the same knee-jerk reaction that NPR is accused of: lack of a thoughtful, measured, transparent response with the flexibility to shape the outcome through dialog and understanding.

The Williams issue raises legitimate questions that don't have easy answers:

Was it possible for Juan Williams to maintain credibility as a "balanced analyst" on NPR while he "editorialized" on Fox News?

More broadly, does the journalist's role of analyst or host of a news program restrict that individual's right to unfettered free speech? Could Walter Cronkite have maintained his credibility if he told us what he really felt about the stories he reported?

As a nation, how can we discuss our fears through a process that leads to learning and understanding, without having the conversation labeled racist or bigoted and abruptly terminated?

NPR is one organization that can help us address these questions, so we all learn and grow from the Juan Williams affair.

To those whose disappointment in NPR leads to the reponse to no longer fund public radio, I ask you to reconsider. Despite shortcomings, NPR is a vital journalistic voice in our democracy and needs to be supported and strengthened.

It's truly unfortunate that this issue has become a political football, and our society has lost the opportunity for the teaching moment.

For more background on the story:

• New York Times article on the termination
• NPR Ombudsman's comments on the dismissal
• Washington Post follow-up story on the termination and reaction

The evolution of journalism and media

Today's New York Times Sunday Book Review has an enlightening review of Alan Brinkley's biography of Henry Luce (The Publisher, Henry Luce and His American Century).

The story of Luce and his publications (Time, Life, Fortune) reflect the embodiment of journalism through much of the 20th century; these publications are — or were, in the case of Life — icons of my life.

Bill Keller, Executive Editor of the Times, concludes his review with a summary of the present state of journalism, media, and American society. I find it worthy of memorializing:

It would be a mistake to sentimentalize the previous century’s version of journalistic authority. But it is probably fair to say that the cacophony of today’s media — in which rumor and invective often outpace truth-testing, in which shouting heads drown out sober reflection, in which it is possible for people to feel fully informed without ever encountering an opinion that contradicts their prejudices — plays some role in the polarizing of our politics, the dysfunction of our political system and the increased cynicism of the American electorate.

Brainwashing or encouraging?

I was quite surprised at the outcry over President Obama's plan to speak to America's school children yesterday, commemorating the start of the school year.

Perhaps the strongest response came from the chairman of the Republican Party of Florida, Jim Greer, who issued a press release condemning the speech and the President's motives:

September 1, 2009

Greer Condemns Obama’s Attempt to Indoctrinate Students

Tallahassee – Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer today released the following statement condemning President Obama’s use of taxpayer dollars to indoctrinate America’s children to his socialist agenda.

"As the father of four children, I am absolutely appalled that taxpayer dollars are being used to spread President Obama’s socialist ideology. The idea that school children across our nation will be forced to watch the President justify his plans for government-run health care, banks, and automobile companies, increasing taxes on those who create jobs, and racking up more debt than any other President, is not only infuriating, but goes against beliefs of the majority of Americans, while bypassing American parents through an invasive abuse of power.

"While I support educating our children to respect both the office of the American President and the value of community service, I do not support using our children as tools to spread liberal propaganda. The address scheduled for September 8, 2009, does not allow for healthy debate on the President’s agenda, but rather obligates the youngest children in our public school system to agree with our President’s initiatives or be ostracized by their teachers and classmates.

"Public schools can’t teach children to speak out in support of the sanctity of human life or traditional marriage. President Obama and the Democrats wouldn’t dream of allowing prayer in school. Christmas Parties are now Holiday Parties. But, the Democrats have no problem going against the majority of American people and usurping the rights of parents by sending Pied Piper Obama into the American classroom.

"The Democrats have clearly lost the battle to maintain control of the message this summer, so now that school is back in session, President Obama has turned to American’s children to spread his liberal lies, indoctrinating American’s youngest children before they have a chance to decide for themselves.”

Hyperbole? Over the top? Seems so to me. However you can judge for yourself by watching the President's remarks.



Ironically, ABC News reported on Monday that Jim Greer had changed his opinion of the speech, calling it a "good speech" and one he would actually allow his own children to watch. However, he did not back down from his press release, claiming that his protest caused the President to change the speech and the lesson plan materials being sent to schools by the Department of Education.

I find it hard to believe this stuff actually happens.

More on health care comparisons

Continuing my research into the health-care systems of other countries, here are a few resources that provide additional information.

In a comment to yesterday's posting, Burns referred to an NPR Talk of the Nation program about Canada's health-care system. I searched the web site and believe this program is the one he was referring to.

I also found an interesting Wikipedia article that compares the Canadian and American systems.

Finally, this AP article shows the irony of Britons' views of their system, which is prone to criticism within the country — unless Americans are dissing it.

A Canadian's perspective of health care

Prompted by the health care debate in the U.S., I asked a family friend who lives in Canada about the Canadian system.

Canada and the UK are often the poster children of government-run health care. Critics cite these two to prove that "socialized medicine" delivers poor medical care, with rationed or limited access and long waits.

In an e-mail, I asked this family friend to speak of her family's experience with Canada's universal coverage. Here's her response, slightly edited to preserve anonymity. The italicized items are my additions to clarify meaning.

Hello Gary:

I am all for it. My husband and I pay a total of $96 a month to cover the two of us, and when we go into the doctor or hospital there is no bill coming later in the mail. We are not stopped from going into the hospital because everyone is required to have B.C. (British Columbia) medical or a medical from their employment which is very reasonable.

Dental (unless you have a plan with your employment) is not a requirement, although children whose parents have a lower income are able to receive dental care — which I might add would be a boon to a lot I see in the U.S. (sorry to be so blunt).

They did for awhile have a $5 or $10 fee for emergency use but ... have dropped that now.

We even see specialists without a fee.

I NEVER had had to worry about not being able to see a doctor or use the hospital, ever.

I know years ago my friend just about died in Redding (CA) when she was a little girl (appendicitis). Until her parents could prove they could pay, they (i.e., the hospital) would not look after her.

I believe that health care and education are the most important things a country has to provide for their people (of course food and choice of religion are a given).

I will concede that this is a single data point. Nonetheless, I think it's relevant. Additionally, when I was in Europe on a business trip in May, I had a fascinating dinner conversation about health care with two colleagues, one German and one British. Both were quite satisfied with their national health-care systems.

Perhaps a universal, single-payer system isn't the bogeyman that some make it out to be.

Update, Sunday, August 16

My friend sent me another e-mail, largely covering family items; however, she did include additional thoughts about Canada's healthcare system.

You will probably be amazed at the fact that Keifer Sutherland's grandfather, Tommy Douglas, was the creator of our medical system. He was a political party leader in Saskatchewan and went through very critical abuse by doctors, politicians, etc. over this, but he hung in there and got this benefit for all Canadians. We have lost some of it through abuse from immigrants and greed of politicians over the years, but it is still a good system.

We usually go to Yuma, Arizona each winter and do see the effects of your medical system. We always purchase extended medical so that we are covered while we are in the U.S. Our system will cover what they pay here, and the rest then is covered by our extended plan. It is not cheap.

The price of liberty

This Memorial Day was sunny and warm, the perfect occasion for a barbecue with neighbors and friends. Except for the parade downtown this morning and the day off from work, today seemed like just another weekend day.

That we could enjoy the day as we did, with hardly a care, is testimony to the men and women who have served the country, since before its inception, to help create and preserve our liberty. From their service — many losing their lives — we have the ironic privilege of taking our liberty for granted.

A statue outside the National Archives in Washington, DC, bears the inscription: Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. A Google search reveals sources that attribute the quote to either John Philpot Curran (1750-1817) or Wendell Phillips (1811-1884).

The citation for Wendell Phillips contains the quotation in a speech he gave to the Massachusetts Anti-Slavery Society in Boston in 1852. His words seem as relevant today as they must have been in 1852:

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty — power is ever stealing from the many to the few…. The hand entrusted with power becomes … the necessary enemy of the people. Only by continual oversight can the democrat in office be prevented from hardening into a despot: only by unintermitted Agitation can a people be kept sufficiently awake to principle not to let liberty be smothered in material prosperity.

The future of your public radio station

KUNR, the public radio station serving most of northern Nevada and northeastern California, devoted its Friday morning Nevada Newsline program to soliciting feedback about the station. Given my roots are in Reno, I enjoy listening to the program to keep up with some of what's going on in the area. And I couldn't resist the opportunity to provide my own feedback to David Stipech, the General Manager.

David,

I just finished listening to the podcast of Friday's Nevada Newsline. I enjoyed hearing the discussion of how KUNR is serving the community and the programming trade-offs the station has made in the past year. Also, I appreciate your willingness to do a show soliciting feedback and the spirit with which you took constructive criticism.

This e-mail will add to your feedback. My perspective reflects a different yet, I believe, growing segment of your audience.

First, a bit of background: Born and raised in Reno, I left the area for college and career. Now living in New Hampshire, I still have family and property there and feel a strong connection with my roots. This leads me to want to stay abreast of what's going on in Reno and to relocate back there one of these years. That explains why I listen to Nevada Newsline via podcast.

I am also a long-time listener of NPR and currently support New Hampshire Public Radio (NHPR), WBUR, KUNR, and KCFR — the latter since I regularly listen to their podcast of Left, Right, and Center. Historically, my listening was via radio. With the advent of the iPod and podcasts, though, my public radio consumption has shifted largely to podcast. Podcasts also allow me to find and consume programs that are not available on my local radio stations, such as Left, Right, and Center and Nevada Newsline. In addition, I have the freedom to access programs that are not on the radio: NPR's Planet Money, the New York Times World View podcast, the Washington Post's Post Politics Podcast, and EconTalk.

While my listening habits are probably atypical for my over 50 demographic, they likely reflect the preferences of the under 30 and, perhaps, even the under 40 media consumers. It's certainly the trend. The question this begs is if I can access NPR programs via podcast, how does KUNR remain relevant, and why should I remain a member? Arguably, the time and geographic limitations of radio, contrasted with the unlimited bandwidth and time offered by the Internet, will increasingly limit public radio's reach and success.

The solution to this conundrum lies in the same rationale used to advocate free trade between countries, i.e., let each do what it does best. KUNR cannot compete with NPR in delivering national and international news. Thankfully for KUNR, NPR cannot compete with KUNR in understanding Reno, Northern Nevada, and Northeastern California, nor in transforming that understanding into programs that inform local citizens. To survive and thrive, KUNR must increasingly focus on unique programs that address the needs of the community. And KUNR should offer multiple channels for people to access this programming, i.e., the Internet in addition to traditional FM.

Thanks for reading through this, which is offered in the spirit of building upon the good work you and your staff are doing for so many listeners. Hopefully, my points aren't new to you or the KUNR board, and the topic has generated thoughtful reflection and discussion, including even revisiting the fundamental mission of KUNR. You have a few years to respond, as this trend will take the next decade to play out, even though the direction seems clear.

Having spent my career in high tech, I often observe how technology improves our lives, usually by disrupting the "old order" and business models. In this case, I hope KUNR will be one of the change agents and not a casualty.

Best regards,

Gary Lerude

Do Mexican trucks endanger American drivers?

One of the items tucked into the 2009 budget bill was a provision to end a pilot program allowing Mexican trucks access to U.S. highways. In response, the Mexican government is moving to impose tariffs on 90 American products imported into Mexico, valued at $2.4-billion according to an editorial in the San Jose Mercury News.

Enacted as a result of NAFTA (the North American Free Trade Agreement), the pilot program was one step on a path to establish “freer” trade by allowing Mexican truckers to transport goods throughout the U.S. and American truckers the right to deliver freight into Mexico. Before Congress moved to end the program, the outcome of a successful pilot would likely have been the permanent presence of Mexican trucks on U.S. highways and American trucks in Mexico.

Canadian truckers currently have no restrictions that prevent them from driving on U.S. highways.

Voicing the argument against the Mexican truckers, the Teamsters Union claims that Mexican trucks and drivers do not meet the same safety standards required of U.S. truckers and, therefore, threaten American drivers. The Sierra Club takes the position that Mexican trucks do not meet U.S. emission standards and will degrade America's air quality and contribute to pollution-induced illness and disease.

Contradicting the Teamsters' claims, former Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters has stated that the Mexican companies in the year-long pilot are required to comply with all U.S. safety regulations and standards and to carry insurance with a licensed U.S. firm. Drivers must hold a commercial drivers license, carry proof of medical fitness, comply with the hours-of-service rules, and be able to understand questions and directions in English.

While I agree with the Teamsters that imposing uniform standards and regulations is only fair, I doubt this is their only motivation in opposing this provision of NAFTA. Competition from Mexican drivers who make a fraction of the Teamster's pay will cause some U.S. truckers to go out of business and their Teamster drivers to lose their jobs. The Teamsters, understandably, want to prevent this to maintain their standard of living.

The benefit of allowing competition will be a more efficient industry with lower costs for shippers, leading to lower costs for consumers. Competition leads to what economists call creative destruction, which benefits society. I favor competition over protectionism, having developed this belief from the perspective of my career in the high-tech semiconductor industry, where the competitive race never ends. Another good perspective on this topic is found in Thomas Friedman's book, The World is Flat.

So let's establish common standards for all truckers, hold them accountable, and open the highways.

Sources and Additional Information

• San Jose Mercury News editorial, 18-Mar-09
• Department of Transportation press release on the pilot program, 23-Feb-07
  
• Teamsters President Hails Senate Vote to Close Border to Unsafe Mexican Trucks, 11-Mar-09 press release
  
• Hoffa Denounces Mexican Tariff Threat Over Unsafe Trucks, Freight Teamsters blog
• Teamsters Rally Against Illegal Mexican Truck Program video, Teamsters web site
• Mexico Trucker web site, clearly an advocate for the pilot program and cross-border trucking
  

Should the US Government help the struggling auto industry?

Last week the CEOs of the Big 3 auto makers testified before Congress, asking for government funding to save their companies. Unconvinced, Congress told them to explain, by December 2, how any government money will be used.

The Bush administration remains opposed to using any of the $700-billion in Federal funding already approved to address the credit crisis. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson said that would not lead to the necessary changes to sustain the industry for the long term. However, he also stated that bankruptcy would not be good, especially with the economy in recession.

Perhaps unfairly, US auto makers seem to be the poster children for an industry that has not served the market very well. The Japanese pioneered small, fuel-efficient vehicles in the 1970s and 80s and, more recently, hybrids. However, to give the US car makers some credit, they did invent the minivan and were satisfying the considerable demand for SUVs and Hummers until gas prices rose to $4 a gallon. Unfortunately, the industry was vulnerable: overly dependent on these large, gas-guzzling vehicles without the ability to respond quickly to changes in market demand.

Now the US industry is reeling. Sales are off dramatically. Auto makers are losing money and burning cash at an unsustainable rate. GM's stock price has cratered to just a tenth of its value a year ago.

In his testimony before Congress last week, Rick Wagoner, the CEO of GM, argued that GM has taken the steps to position the company for long-term success. He wants government funding as a bridge to weather the current recession, claiming per-capital auto sales are the lowest since World War II. He also stated that if the industry fails, 3-million jobs representing $150-billion in people’s incomes will be lost in the first year.

Should the US Government help the struggling auto industry?

My initial reaction was “no.” In our capitalist system, companies compete to identify the market’s needs and develop products and services that offer the best value. Those that do, win our business. Those that don’t are usually not as profitable and are often acquired or may even fail as the market matures or the economy dips into recession. That’s just the life cycle of companies.  We may be at the point where the US can’t support the number of companies that are manufacturing cars. So why not let the market take its course, even if the Big 3 shrink to one or two survisors?

However, my free-market view is tempered a bit by the argument that these companies are too big to fail. I’ve heard that five people support every auto employee. You have the suppliers, dealers, transportation companies, and financing firms that are directly involved in the production and sale of cars, as well as the barbers and grocers and waitresses and doctors who serve those who work in the industry.

 
If we’re risking entire communities being impacted by any of these companies going under, then I wonder if there’s not a more humane and graceful way to deal with this crisis: a bankruptcy that would allow GM, Chrysler, or Ford to keep operating while restructuring. That’s what happened in the airline industry after 9-11: Delta, United, and US Airways kept flying.

 
Given the frozen credit markets today, GM, Chrysler, or Ford may not be able to secure private financing to carry them through bankruptcy reorganization. That’s where Government funding would be appropriate, to allow them to keep operating while building a bridge to the future. However, I would not feel comfortable with the Government simply handing over $25-billion with no defined expectations or accountability.

That’s probably not going to happen, though. More likely, the Congress will want to become too involved in the operation and strategy of these companies, which I equally oppose.

One last suggestion: The next time the Big 3 CEOs come to Washington, they should drive all night from Detroit in their most fuel-efficient vehicles, rather than flying in their respective corporate jets. That will play much better to the nation’s current mood of populism and sacrifice.

How can social media help public radio?

WBUR, one of Boston's public radio stations and nationally recognized, has embarked on an experiment to build community through social media. Notwithstanding their enthusiasm and a growing group of loyal social media advocates, this is uncharted territory, metaphorically akin to Lewis and Clark setting out to explore the great American west.

Ken George recently lamented in a Tweet that the General Manager (GM) of WBUR doesn't see the value in Twitter:

Had a conversation earlier this morning w/CEO who is Twitter skeptic. Cites relatively small numbers & lack of "Joe Six Packs." 10:54 AM Oct 15th

This skepticism of Twitter and, presumably, other social media poses interesting questions, which I recently spent some time contemplating on a cross-country plane flight. I started with the mission of WBUR, as posted on the station's web site:

“As the leading producer of news and information in New England...WBUR's highest ideal is to contribute meaningfully to an informed, engaged and caring citizenry.”

Given the mission, how might the station accomplish it?

• Provide FM listeners in the Boston area with news and information generated by WBUR and the world's leading radio news providers (e.g., NPR, PRI, BBC);

• Increase the served audience (i.e., listener hours) by supplementing the main FM broadcast signal with additional broadcast (FM, AM, HD) and Internet (streaming and podcast) channels;

• Syndicate WBUR produced programs for distribution through other public radio channels that are outside of WBUR's broadcast and Internet footprint; and

• Raise sufficient funding through listener membership, organizational underwriting, government grants, program fees, and other sources to enable WBUR's mission.

Now, how might the GM measure the station's success?

• The number of WBUR listeners via broadcast and Internet;

• The number of syndicated programs, stations carrying these programs, and associated listeners;

• The number of members and average pledge per member;

• Income and expenses (income should obviously exceed expenses);

• Image in the community among listeners, businesses, government, and journalistic peers.

With this traditional framework, it's logical for the GM to evaluate a new program, technology, or other investment of station resources from the perspective of its impact upon the mission, strategy, and success of the organization. Does social media, collectively and in its various individual forms, help the station to accomplish its mission and succeed?

I think those of us who use Twitter, Utterli, Facebook, etc. and who also are WBUR's social media community would agree that we are increasingly loyal to the station. In response, the GM might reasonably ask what loyalty means: are more of us becoming members? Are we increasing our pledges? Are we volunteering? Can social media increase the number of listeners and pledges to WBUR? And how else is the social media community benefiting the station?

What may not be fully appreciated or easily measured by the GM is how social media creates an opportunity to have conversations with listeners, conversations about how well the station is serving the community. Consumer companies spend untold millions on focus groups to gauge customer preferences and behavior. Social media can offer relatively inexpensive and intimate insight into what listeners value as quality news and information. Only the listeners can answer whether they are better informed, fully engaged, and more caring because of WBUR. And if not, only the listeners can provide a sounding board and guidance on how to achieve these goals.

The GM is right that we in the social media community are, today, relatively small in number and don't really fall in the Joe Six Pack demographic. I suspect we would probably describe ourselves as early adopters, rather than Joe Six Packs. That should be an advantage: Early adopters help to discern the future, what will be and – equally as important – what won't be. Having spent my career in technology, I would jump at the opportunity to have a willing community of early adopters advise and inform my company's strategy and provide feedback on performance.

In the 1980s, U.S. industry began losing significant market share to Japanese competitors, because of lower quality. U.S. companies responded by redefining the American paradigm and approach to quality. In one of the first quality courses I took, Joseph Juran, dry and bow-tied, admonished us to translate quality into the language of management. By that, he meant money.

This lesson is still appropriate. One of the responsibilities of a social media evangelist is to translate the lexicon, tools, and experience of the community into the language of management. If we can articulate how we can help WBUR achieve its ideal of an informed, engaged, and caring citizenry — even how to measure our impact — the GM will listen and, most likely, join us.

Addendum

After I posted this, Ken George clarified that the CEO he referred to in his Tweet was not the GM of WBUR. So let me correct that error before I get Ken into trouble with his management!

Nonetheless, I think the point of engaging social media with the mission and strategy of WBUR (and, by extension, other public radio media) remains valid.

Dirge Without Music

During this morning's service, the minister used Edna St. Vincent Millay's poem Dirge Without Music for her meditation, to honor the memory of all who died of violence this week. It seems fitting, as well, to remember all those who have blessed our lives and are no longer with us.

Dirge Without Music

I am not resigned to the shutting away of loving hearts in the hard ground.
So it is, and so it will be, for so it has been, time out of mind:
Into the darkness they go, the wise and the lovely. Crowned
With lilies and with laurel they go; but I am not resigned.

Lovers and thinkers, into the earth with you.
Be one with the dull, the indiscriminate dust.
A fragment of what you felt, of what you knew,
A formula, a phrase remains, --- but the best is lost.

The answers quick & keen, the honest look, the laughter, the love,
They are gone. They have gone to feed the roses. Elegant and curled
Is the blossom. Fragrant is the blossom. I know. But I do not approve.
More precious was the light in your eyes than all the roses in the world.

Down, down, down into the darkness of the grave
Gently they go, the beautiful, the tender, the kind;
Quietly they go, the intelligent, the witty, the brave.
I know. But I do not approve. And I am not resigned.