Random Thoughts

Senile of Omaha

2011-09-20T18:41:00.000-04:00

He was once known as 'The Oracle of Omaha'. His reputation as the best stock picker is still very much intact and almost legendary. And yet I am not sure if the rest of his thinking is still as sharp as it used to be. Has senility kicked in?

He claims his 'class' is not taxed enough. I do not quite think there is a cohesive 'class' that can be identified. He and a few other mega rich are very philanthropic. So, by his own admission, he would rather give to private charity than to public spending. If he ever wanted, he had every opportunity to write a check to pay down the debt. And yet he has not chosen to do so - that would have been quite a drummed up event, if he did.

He didn't object to low taxes when he was building out his Berkshire empire. Now that his empire is high flying, he is proposing this taxation. Doesn't it look like he does not want others to catch up to his empire? It seems obvious to me.

There are really only a handful of people in his league. So, when he is proposing this taxation, he is obviously proposing it for a whole lot of people that make a lot less than him. Taxation that he is proposing is not significant to him, but everyone else it affects.

Now, on cue, the President wants to implement the 'Buffet Rule'. And by and large it is going to impact everyone - not just the mega rich. And here is why.

First of all, there aren't enough of them to generate $1.5 trillion. So, this billionaire rule is going to hit everyone who makes more than $200,000.

Next, they claim that the dividend tax rate is not high enough. We have 2 classes of dividends and it is really the 'qualified dividends' that get the lower rate. And the qualified dividends are issued primarily by stable, domestic companies - that either manufacture domestically or in the services sector state side. By increasing the tax rate, you are encouraging investors to find instruments that are either in the speculative growth sector or foreign companies. Smart move, Mr. President.

And then the capital gains tax rate. Short term capital gains is taxed as regular income - so, it gets progressively worse. Long term capital gains get the lower tax rate. These are the gains that I reap from investing in our economy to grow with an upfront investment - with my disposable income that has already been taxed to the hilt. Sounds like yet another smart move, Mr. President.

Mr. Warren Buffet has essentially turned into 'Senile of Omaha' and a mouth piece for Obama Socialism.

9/11/11

2011-09-11T20:19:00.000-04:00

I watched the 10 year anniversary at Ground Zero on TV. Quite a dignified and somber service dedicating the memorial. Wish they did not squabble in the early years and completed the construction of all the towers. That would have shown the real resolve of American psyche.

It was good to see George W and Laura Bush along with the President and the First Lady. For the Bushes, it was quite an emotional stage fighting back the tears.

None of my family was lost in that tragedy 10 years ago. And yet I feel violated for so many of my country men died that day. As I watched the reading of the names and listened to the memories of loved ones lost that day, I did not hold back the tears. In the confines of my living room, I let my tears run down.

It was cathartic.

'Faceless' Corporations

2011-09-05T18:51:00.000-04:00

Naderites are convinced that all corporations are faceless - that they are run by heartless boards and chief executives driven by profits and personal greed. And this narrative is regurgitated by our willful Left media ad-naseum. And I know that a vast swaths of the population believes that.

The current administration loves this. From the day of the inauguration, the administration has mounted a massive offensive against the 'faceless' corporations. They want to replace these with the friendly faces of your government. Well, if you want to believe that, I have a unicorn that I want to sell to you.

A majority of Americans work for a corporation. And a majority of the decisions within these corporations are made by fairly low level staff. Yes, major decisions that affect fundamental operations and growth of these companies are done at very high levels. This happens to be the case even at our homes. Do you always get your way at home? Of course, not. If you do, either you are single or a tyrant household.

So, first let us look at profits and greed. Are we all so altruistic that we are not driven by greed? Greed is what has led to man's progress. Why do each of us want to be paid more than our needs? Isn't that a 'profit'? Whether it is a corporation or a person, a profit and a little greed is what is essential to do better. When people refer to excessive profits and excessive greed, they are being very subjective. It is all very relative. However, if the profit and greed leads to illegal activities, that is when our laws should be enforced. But merely engaging in a 'profitable' activity and satisfying one's greed is not criminal or detrimental to the society.

Let's illustrate a few examples from my 'faceless' corporation.

I have a colleague who supervises a team. Over the years, her team's responsibilities have shrunk. Naturally, the management expects her group to shrink. Her choice for the reduction was not her, but rather a grumpy, nasty old fellow. And being of a liberal persuasion, she is convinced it is the 'faceless' corporation that made her do it. Not seeing that she had a choice - she could have been the one to go. Yes, she has responsibilities for herself and her family. She also has responsibilities towards her 'staff' - which has performed admirably over the years, but still could not improve this fellow's disposition (well, the guy was a good worker despite a nasty attitude). She also failed to grasp the need for the 'faceless' corporation's well being of within the expense limits afforded by its profits.

Next example illustrates the emotional issues: One department served its purpose admirably over the years when we were a large company requiring centralized training. However, as the company divested and became a more nimble and smaller company, it was becoming a luxury. At this point, the company decided to eliminate this department. There were only a supervisor and a staff. At crunch time, the supervisor switched to another team and saved her job. So, the company had to eliminate the other person's position. Interestingly enough this supervisor went around telling anyone who would listen what a heartless the corporation was to let go of that staff member as his spouse was battling a terminal illness and needed a job and healthcare to support it. It feels wrong. But the supervisor could have saved that job instead of hers - if she were that compassionate. I do not know her own circumstances. However, it is wrong of this person to paint the company as heartless. Doesn't the company have to live within its limits as to what we can afford and not maintain a department it no longer needs?

And last, this is pure self-centered thinking. We had a system that evolved over the last 40-years, still runs on the good old IBM mainframe. And many of its features still remind you of the old punch card days. Supporting this system is a group of 6 people (much reduced from its glory days) and 5 of those would retire in the next 5 years, have been around for 30+ years. Over the last 7+ years we have sought to replace this system with a more modern fit for our company. Almost every single attempt has come up empty. And finally this year, we found a system that would work. And seeking cooperation from this group to get the new system up and running has been extremely difficult. As to how stupid we were to attempt to replace such a complex system. And what would happen to them. Never did it occur to this group as to what would happen to the company if they retire and we do not have competent staff to support the old system. But they all want to ensure they have a comfortable retirement, I fully understand that. What about the company's interests? Don't they count?

I am not a key decision maker, but I am a key 'influencer'. I do take my job seriously and deliberately. I also take my individual responsibility seriously towards my coworkers, myself and the company. If the company lives beyond its means, unlike the Federal government, the company cannot raise its debt ceiling - which means an ultimate end of the company as we know it. In whose larger interest is to see the company progress in the most optimal fashion. It belongs to each and every one of us the employees. Even the senior executive team is an 'employee' and ultimately answerable to the share holders. Without proper stewardship at every level, the companies do not last for long.

I believe we are the faces of these 'faceless' corporations. We must show individual responsibility towards every single one of our decisions - however small and insignificant we might think they are.

I must agree with Mitt Romney - Corporations are people. Do not demonize them. For a large number of us, these corporations pay our bills.

Lobbyists

2011-07-24T21:15:00.000-04:00

"Can you explain to me why we need lobbyists?" said a co-worker the other day over lunch.

I have been constructing further thoughts around my response that day "Go read your constitution".

So, what exactly did I mean by that. Looking up the 1st Amendment, here is the relevant passage:

"...or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Many would take umbrage to this expansive use of 1st Amendment in support of lobbyists. No, I don't either.

How exactly do you petition your Government? It is not what it used to be. Back at the creation, the Federal government only had enumerated powers. All others were vested in the various State governments and further delegated to your local government at the town and county level. It is a whole lot easier to petition your local government.

Today, how exactly do you petition your Federal government?

Well, we elect them don't we? Yes, we do. Electing our House of Representatives is still the closest to our 'will'. And recent election cycles have confirmed that - it is still dynamic. As geographically diverse as our nation is, each of our reps is able to tackle a few issues of local interest into the deliberations of the federal government. As they deliberate more, they have far less chance of meeting with their constituents. Technology may yet change this dynamic. Not sure Twitter alone can solve this problem.

And now let's focus on ourselves. In our lives, we have competing priorities. And most of us struggle to balance those. There are priorities of the heart and the priorities of reality. Which ones do you want your representative attend to. Do we always know what is good for us? (Few amongst us care about and active about only the priorities of the heart. Most of us cannot afford to do that.)

Even if we want to lobby for our causes or priorities, we have limited opportunities to do that. Ultimately, we have to get on with our lives. The act of lobbying in itself is not our daily life. it is someone else's.

"Lobbyist"

ORIGIN mid-16th century

The verb sense derives from the practice of frequenting the lobby of a house of legislature to influence its members into supporting a cause.

The best interest is self-interest. There is no altruistic motive in our existence. We express our self-interest when we vote; only that our choice is limited to available candidates representing a basket of those interests. To influence your 'best possible candidate' to weigh-in a legislation of your interest, you have to lobby. I bet there were lobbyists even in the days of the Caesars.

Now a days, every cause has a lobbyist. (Media tells us and) most of us think lobbying is done by big corporations. Biggest, monolithic lobbyist is in fact the AARP. Followed by the AFP and other trade unions. In fact, all corporations face expense pressure to reduce all expenses, including their lobbying expenses.

What is that corporations need to lobby? Well, tax laws, environment laws, etc. Every single one of these laws have a direct impact on a company's profitability. And by extension its ability to hire or keep its employees. Yes, ultimately it affects us.

More often than not, majority tend to display an animosity towards their employer. When media tells us that the big, faceless corporation is lobbying, we agree - they must be working against us.

It is funny, that majority don't object if United Auto Workers lobby or if the Spotted Owl Society lobbies. It is just the big corporations that we loath. And the last time I checked, an awful lot of people work for these big corporations. (Our hatred towards the employer we so depend on to make ends meet - that's just another topic for a different day).

I don't think a common man has any net gain from the lobbying activities. Since every one gains something, it costs us the tax payers an awful lot of money to satisfy all these lobbyist and the interests they support. And that is a net negative.

Lobbying excesses have to be punished by law. We have seen great example of that - Jack Abramoff. And many others.

However, we have to be cautious about restrictions on lobbying. It is about really the only way you can lobby your government for redress of your grievances. Eliminate that, we would loose a great deal.

Most of us don't know what it is to not have the freedom of speech. Most of the world is only now getting its liberties.

You have to zealously protect freedom of speech even if it requires us to tolerate lobbying.

And he turns out to be a RINO

2010-07-12T20:52:00.000-04:00

It did not take him long. He claimed he was going to be the 41st vote against the healthcare reform debate. And they made sure (Dems, that is) that he would not cast that vote. But they had nothing to fear.

Turns out, he is a RINO. Of course, you know who I am talking about - Senator Scott Brown. He is obviously looking for his re-election in 2 years. And of course all the union and special interest negative ads. He announces that he is going to vote FOR the 2,000 page monstrosity called 'financial services reform'. Really, Scott!

This is a big let down. Well, he can count on at least one vote he is not going to have next time around.

Gates Gate - a year hence

2010-06-30T21:59:00.001-04:00

Gates gate - the fracas about arresting Henry Louis Gates in Cambridge, MA by a white police officer. They took almost a year to complete their investigation - like there was much to investigate. And the report is an example of the hollow-ness of the Cambridge elite.

We have become a nation of wusses. According to the investigating committee - "there were missed opportunities on both sides". Apparently, the police have the burden of explaining what they are doing. Well, a police officer responding to a 911 call about a burglary should "arrest" the burglar - he can check the credentials after that and read the miranda rights.

Media portrays this as a teachable moment about 'race relations'. Really. In 2009, in a nation (predominantly white) that elected its first black President, in a state with its first black Governor, in a(n elite) city with a black mayor, a routine arrest some how has racial overtones. Come on, isn't there any limit to this nonsense.

Law abiding - only some of the time

2010-06-30T21:43:00.001-04:00

Most Americans consider themselves Law abiding citizens. But that is really not the case. There is one law they routinely break - the Speed Limit.

100% of everyone I know, speeds. It does not seem to enter into anyone's conscience that the speed limit is part of the local law and statutes. Speeding clearly violates the local law.

And there is a real consequence of this brazen violation of the law - too many accidents and at times, innocent lives lost.

I have written about this before. Most people, decent people, routinely make fun of speed limits and driving within those limits. I do not quite understand how trivial it is for some of them.

You can not be a law abiding citizen if you choose which laws you want to abide by.

We live in a democracy. And the laws are made on our behalf by the representatives we elect. If we do not like the law, use the political process to change the law. But not break the law.

Shipping & Handling

2010-05-10T21:20:00.000-04:00

What exactly does 'Shipping & Handling' constitute? Shipping is quite understandable - cost of shipping via UPS or FedEx or even USPS. But what exactly is 'Handling'? What do they 'handle'?

When majority of the businesses were brick and mortar and you wanted something packed and shipped to your home, I can understand the 'handling' aspect of it - since it is not their usual thing to do. But how are 'Online retailers - e-tailers' justified in charging its customer 'handling'?

Would you pay Dell a separate 'handling' cost to put that computer of yours in a box and send it to you from Texas? Of course not. That is Dell's business model and the 'handling' is factored into the price.

Amazon offers the ultimate - Free Saver Shipping. If you are not in a rush, your item is shipped to you for free.

Contrast this with some really outrageous e-tailers: ProFlowers (or any of the flower delivery companies for that matter), L.L.Bean. Their merchandise is already higher priced than a department store. And you end up 'shipping & handling' on top of their exorbitant prices. This is a total rip-off.

Quite frankly, your grocery store flowers are more fresh and better than anything you can order online with these guys. And L.L.Bean's merchandise is also mostly 'Made in China' stuff that you can buy anywhere else. And to have to pay 'handling' for a vendor whose business model is mail-order - is simply unacceptable in today's world.

Red Pill, Blue Pill

2009-12-15T20:01:00.004-05:00

Over this summer, our President used the red pill, blue pill analogy to bolster his healthcare plan.

I have personally been involved in evaluating these considerations for my own health a few years ago. In fact, I had three choices.

Faced with highly active Crohn's disease, ended up in the hospital with bloody diarrhea 4 times in 6 weeks. My doctor who was treating me for years wanted to perform yet another resection - which may have worked.

I sought a second opinion. And this doctor wanted to treat me just with steroids - the blue pill, would cost just pennies per daily dose and the insurance does not have to pay any of it, as these are fairly cheap.

Frustrated with those options, I sought yet another opinion. And this doctor thought I was too young to resect away my intestine or treat with steroids. He decided to put me on Remicade - the red pill, costs upwards of $5,000 every 8 weeks and administered at the hospital or physician's office.

In all of this, my insurance company did not get between me and my doctors. And the improvement in the quality of life has been incredible.

Under state-run healthcare like the British system, NICE (the agency that sets these thresholds) would have denied this treatment option since it exceeded their arbitrary $20,000 limit for six months.

And now, anyone with basic understanding of how market works knows that, if the blue pill can do everything that the red pill does at a lower cost, there never will be a red pill.

If there is anything that red pill does the blue pill does not, there are probably patients out there who need it, regardless of the cost.

When you paint with such broad strokes as the President and the democrats are doing, the individuals such as me get the stick. The reason the nation is animated over this subject is because when individual rights are threatened for collectivist dogmas, are we still a free country and free people?

Why we are in Afghanistan

2009-10-10T14:51:00.005-04:00

We are in Afghanistan because Al-Qaeda took responsibility for 9-11 attacks and at that time was in Afghanistan with all operational leadership and its training camps. And the then President and commander-in-chief, George W Bush, has vowed solemnly to go after those who caused us harm. And he was not un-serious.

"When I take action, I'm not going to fire a $2 million missile at a $10 empty tent and hit a camel in the butt. It's going to be decisive."

By all accounts we mounted an effective campaign. None of the "experts" imagined such a swift campaign. We drove both Taliban and Al-qaeda into Pakistan, but out of the civilized parts of Afghanistan (yes, they ended up in some of the caves).

And then president Bush did something else that the "experts" claimed must be done. We outsourced the war efforts to our allies in the NATO. And the situation gotten worse since then. This was the most tragic error.

Contrast this with President Bush's Iraq campaign - the so called "Bush's War". Although we had difficult times, we stayed the course. And through Gen. Petraeus's surge, we came through an otherwise difficult situation. But President Bush did not weaver in his commitment to the people of Iraq and to our troops. By the end of his term in office, he has successfully concluded the campaign - sure, we still have some troops, but the campaign is largely over and Iraqis are firmly in control. But if President Bush had listened to the "experts" - who are mostly his detractors, like he did in the Afghan campaign, Iraq would be in the same mess that we find now in Afghanistan.

Now, we have the most un-serious President in a lifetime. He finds it more important to pitch for Olympics than talk to his General. He wants to tackle "texting while driving" as opposed to war. He is singularly unfit to be the commander-in-chief.

Oh, wait. He just was awarded the Noble Peace prize. He joins the company of the most un-serious Americans before him - Jimmy Carter and Al Gore.

Drunk Driving

2009-09-21T19:27:00.003-04:00

Found out that a co-worker was killed in a head-on collision by a drunk driver over this weekend.

I drink. I drive. But never together in that order - because I know why I drink and that would not go well with the driving part. And for that reason, I limit my drinking to one of 2 places: at home (I do not have to drive at all) or at a restaurant with my family, when I have someone who could drive me home, safely.

May be I am a bit anti-social. I stay out of all after-work drink parties co-workers arrange, primarily because I would have to drive after that and would not want to drink - that would defeat the purpose of the whole party to begin with.

Why this much is not clear to vast majority of the folks out there is a mystery to me. A lot of folks that I know do this as well as speeding - I guess it is the culture.

Ironic that in a liberal state such as Massachusetts, there are no harsh penalties for drunk driving - if it all enforced by the cops. This is not the first such tragedy in the state. Nor is it likely to be the last.

By the way, that drunk driver (in the case of my co-worker) was also high on drugs - survived. And he will live on and drink and drive to kill a few more innocent folks. What a travesty?

Smart Choice

2009-05-12T21:15:00.005-04:00

I have been wondering about the explosion of small cars on American roads and started wondering if all these wonderful folks who think they are "green" simply because they are driving these small cars are being taken for a ride. Now I am convinced they are. Look at the chart below: (apologize for the format)

City Highway Length Height Width Weight HP

Honda

Civic 25 36 177 56 69 2630 140

Fit 28 35 162 60 68 2489 117

Civic Hybrid 40 45 177 56 69 2877 110

Toyota

Corolla 26 34 179 58 69 2822 132

Yaris 29 36 151 60 68 2295 106

Prius 51 48 176 59 69 3042 98

Smart 33 41 106 61 61 1808 70

Mini Cooper 28 37 146 55 66 2546 118

Given a choice between Civic and Fit, there is no "green" reason to choose Fit. It is kind-a attractive compared to very plain look of a Civic. But then again I have seen not so hip people driving 'Fit'.

Likewise, in the Toyota space, Yaris is not that much better than Corolla, but that much smaller.

Mini Cooper is cute, but that is not that much "greener".

Smart simply isn't smart choice for American roads - not practical as you sometime or the other have to get on a highway alongside those 18-wheelers. And for that big trade off, what do you get - almost a pittance.

Civic Hybrid is 1st generation hybrid technology. It is obvious that it delivers similar gas mileage pattern as a gas engine.

Prius is the most sensible "green" car. I do not own one, although I considered buying one. And then my cousin drove me 45 miles on a highway - in the greenbelt (I was in the backseat) and it felt terrible. And it is not very clear of the environmental impact when one has to dispose off the battery in 10 years.

So, I think the Smart Choice would be to pick a gas powered mid-sized car like Civic or Corolla and still feel "green".

And ultimately your driving pattern helps with mileage.

Talking heads, including our President, talk about Small Fuel Efficient cars. Shouldn't it simply be Fuel Efficient Cars? As the above data shows small did not provide fuel efficiency. Small cars are practical for those tiny European nations with cramped cities - makes parking easier, getting around tight spots easier. In our fast expansive continent, we drive long distances on open roads and share those roads with massive trucks. I for one don't really like to be roadkill.

I am all for fuel efficient cars, not small cars.

He kept us safe

2009-01-15T20:46:00.005-05:00

I still vividly remember that fateful morning. South Station in Boston was packed with thousands of commuters heading back home - midday. And once on the train, hundreds packed into the cars, scared, pained and unable to fathom what just happened - each with their own silent thoughts and prayers. And then 10 days later, coming out of South Station on the way to work, thousands of heads looked up at the airplane taking off from Logan for the first time in all those days. I have never seen so many grown men look up at a plane taking off from Logan. And bumper stickers that said "We Stand United". This is what defined the last 7+ years. And it sure defined his Presidency.

On Nov. 4, 1999, in an interview with Andy Hiller, candidate Bush was asked to name the leaders of four current world hot spots: Chechnya, Taiwan, India and Pakistan. And he failed to answer 3 of the 4. He was going to be a domestic issues president - running at the tail end of the largest peacetime expansion. He had no intent to be a foreign policy President - despite his father's foreign policy credentials.

Country was still divided over the disputed elections and his first months were lackluster. And then 9/11 happened. The hero of that day and ensuing weeks was Mayor Giuliani, not President Bush.

And since then, President Bush upheld his constitutional duties and his pledge. Due to its very nature, useful intelligence is never released until the statute of limitations runs out. So, it would be a long time before we know what might have been prevented. But it is pretty clear that around the world, terrorists have been very active. It is reasonable to assume that we have been safe largely because of the efforts of our government.

People argue that anyone would have done as good a job. But that is unfair. You can not add or subtract from a President's record. Presidents do not shape events. Rather, events shape the Presidents. Just as Mr. Clinton richly deserves the praise for the largest peacetime expansion, so does Mr. Bush for this 'safety'. Mr. Bush was not prepared for 9/11 - same way as Mr. Lincoln was not prepared for the Civil War. But those events propelled their presidencies to prominence.

Love him or hate him, this much is clear: "He kept us safe". And for that I am grateful to him. And I am proud of his service. God Bless him and everyone who stood by him.

Secretary "Fraud"

2009-01-13T20:33:00.004-05:00

The revelations about Mr. Geithner's tax problems is astonishing. Rest of us would be in serious trouble, if not in jail.

Of course, Obama thinks it is a minor issue. Not so fast. I sure hope Senate republicans will hold his feet to the fire.

Not only should this guy not get the Treasury Secretary post, he should also be removed from his NY Fed post as well.

Blago's impeachment

2009-01-11T17:38:00.002-05:00

Blago's impeachment this week is the most unlawful thing in this scandal to-date. How could the legislature impeach him when the prosecutor himself has not completed his investigation - which means the legislature does not have the evidence on hand.

Next, there is the case of the prosecutor himself. Mr. Fitzerald is one of those ambitious prosecutors who has shown great disrespect for the law. As we have seen in Mr. Libby's case he has hidden evidence and prosecuted for the most frivolous "crimes" of not remembering the exact words used in a conversation more than 2 years before.

And now in Blago's case, he went before the media very early in his investigation. And the media loved it. And many, many bloggers jumped on the bandwagon. But where is the evidence of the crime. As far as I know, it is under wraps. And the prosecutor himself has requested more time to finish his investigation.

So, how could the Illinois legislature impeach him? Don't you need evidence. I think in order to "appear" to be doing something, the politicians are performing the most "unlawful" act.

And then there is Harry Reid. The man has no shame. If the appointment of Mr. Burris is tainted, then why not go for a special election. But of course, they are scared that Republicans would win that seat.

Is Blago the only one 'lawful' in this scandal so far?

Is Dis-Union Possible?

2008-12-31T12:19:00.005-05:00

This post is in response to this article in WSJ. According to this article, a Russian Academic, Igor Panarin is predicting American dis-union by 2010 - similar to Soviet dis-union. According to him, by the end of June 2010, America will breakup into 6 smaller regions. He says he has mountains of Russian and Soviet intelligence to back his claim.

It happened once before. So, can it happen again? Let's examine the arguments.

After the 2000 elections, some folks on the extreme left talked about moving to Canada or Europe to get away from the illegitimate (in their eyes) and draconian Bush administration. Other than being a fringe thought, no such event took place. Why? Despite MSM repeated claims, America is still a center-right country.

If the elections of 2000 did not cause such a scenario, why would the election of 2008 have such an effect? It was not a landslide victory for Barak - just 52% voted for him. But it was a landslide victory for Democrats in the House and a very tenuous hold for Republicans in the Senate. But Americans in general feel good about this election.

Are there any similarities to 1860?

Back then, the slave-holding southerners misread the election of Abraham Lincoln as a radical abolitionist and seceded from the Union. They incorrectly (at first, Lincoln had no such policy position, but as war wore on, he was convinced) assumed that he would abolish slavery. And that would directly violate their way of life (albeit morally wrong).

No such situation exists today. Bush administration had been the most spend-thrift even by Democratic standards. And this infuriates Conservatives. And Obama proposes to spend even more - much to the thrill of the Democrats. This could galvanize Conservatives. But the American conservative movement is in a disarray. This precludes any popular appeal to large sections of the population - like Reagan once did.

Mr. Panarin argues that rich states will stop paying their dues to the federal government. It is an interesting argument on 2 counts - the definition of rich states and the flow of money. Back in 1787, states certainly did not like 'Assumption' - i.e., the assumption of state debt by the Federal government as proposed by Alexander Hamilton. Because states liked their independence and were fearful of tyrannical federal government with the power of the purse. But with Jefferson's help, the Assumption was adopted and the union survived its first crisis. However, in 2009, most states would love the federal government to come to their rescue. And especially the 'rich' ones as Mr. Panarin would define - Calfornia and New York. Today, states eagerly lobby for and spend federal dollars. California and New York both have a combined $25B dollar budget shortfall for fiscal 2010.

Question of states dues: For nearly 150 years, the federal government survived with states dues. But everything changed with the passage of the Sixteenth Amendment initiating Income tax. "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration." Today, federal government taps right into a paycheck. While it is theoretically possible for say California to instruct employers in its state not to forward federal income tax withholdings to IRS and instead send it to state treasury, it is practically not feasible in this globalized economy. Many employers cross state and country boundaries.

Collapse of the dollar: How low should dollar have to go to trigger such a run? It is said that if America sneezes, the rest of the world catches cold. Right now, American economy is in trouble. It is pretty sick. But due to the global nature of the economy, rest of the world economy is awfully sick too. And this alone has lately strengthened dollar. While there could still be a run on the dollar, there isn't a reserve currency to run to. And yes, they can demand gold in return. And the current price of gold certainly indicates a trend. But even Gold has come off its peak lately. While this is the most plausible scenario, none of the market indicators point to that. And June 2010 is not that far away.

Let's see if anything that threatens our way of life (similar to 1860) that would lead to dis-union. Massive budget cuts required by the states would threaten the spend thrift way of life of most of the states. Environmental regulations (or lack there of) threatens Californian thought (not their way of life - which is inversely proportional to their environmental rhetoric). California is frustrated at Bush EPA for a lax environmental regulation. But that is all going to change with the incoming Obama administration. That leaves the Judicial gauntlet. Recent appointees to Federal bench has been skeptical about the environment claims. And Roberts court has not been that consistent in its approach to environmental issues. And Mr. Obama is likely to get one or two Supreme court nominations that would swing the balance, not to mention several nominations to the lower courts. So, I do not see much there.

And of course the timing is suspect. It is almost a year and half into the new administration. And the congressional mid-term elections are not due for another 5 months - not withstanding the fact that GOP might not make much headway in that election either.

That leaves us with the only 'unknown' in this election. Is this the change the 'Change' candidate have in mind? It sounds too cynical. But we never know. None of us ever questioned him what 'change' he has in mind.

The other possibility, the left has talked about, is for Mr. Bush (or Mr. Cheney) to declare himself President for life and suspend the constitution. Either men are too principled for such a thing.

Of course, Mr. Panarin has classified intelligence to back up his prediction. I am just an average Joe analyzing the hypothesis with the most logical thought.

What do you think?

Paulson's Bluff

2008-12-19T10:14:00.003-05:00

It was a high stakes poker game. Each one at the table knew exactly what cards (toxic debt) they held. But not any one person knew the complete picture. Market froze up because no one wanted to call the bluff.

Enter the trio - Paulson, Bernake & Geithner. They picked a number - $700B. That is their guess. It is just as good as any.

Market was in a free fall until the TARP was passed at $700B. It has stabilized the market a little. It is still in bad shape, but not as bad as it could have been. And they haven't even used most of what Congress allocated.

And that is making our legislators mad. They want every foreclosure to be stopped. But that is not what the TARP was for. At least not as what I understood it to be.

Years from now we will better understand its significance. But for now, let's call it "Paulson's Bluff".

Trickle Down Economy

2008-10-21T20:49:00.002-04:00

"Trickle Down Economy" - This word is almost always used in a negative fashion. Many on the left refer to capitalism this way.

Apparently, there are 2 types: 1) Trickle Down Economy 2) Spread-the-wealth Around Economy.

More well known, real names, for these two types are: Capitalism and Socialism.

Lately, every professor of economy is writing to news papers declaring that capitalism is dead. And these are the same guys who don't admit that socialism was dead with the end of the evil empire. So, let us examine.

Under capitalism, I work hard and save. And then buy a house with those savings. Remember I did not build the house nor did any community group built it for me. A large number of different hard working individuals built my house. And as part of the process earned a living themselves. And yes, I have a lawn. And I hire a landscaper to do it. He is a small business and he has a small crew who take care of my lawn. And thus each one of them earned a living.

Under socialism, I work hard - but can't save, because I only earn a "living wage" - I will only get enough "bread" for my family, a community multiplex (read: Slum) apartment, use public transport and no lawn. So, the guys that built that multiplex also get the same. And there are no landscapers. So, there is no incentive for me to work hard nor for the guy building the multiplexes. Whether he builds one or many, whether be builds it well or not, he gets the same "remuneration".

I have seen both types first hand, lived in both systems.

To many lefties living in the west, Soviets did not know how to "implement" socialism. If only we allowed these folks, it would "work". Yeah, sure!

To me, the only type of economy there is, is the "Trickle down" type. Because, without the rich guys and their parties, vital segments of the job market would disappear. Without these guys cruising in their yachts, there would not be any boat builders. If it is not for their lavish houses, there would not be any groundskeepers. Because, in any society, different people can do different things better.

For "Joe the plumber" to get ahead in life, he has to have some incentive. God bless this guy and everyone else like him who is creating opportunities for others to get ahead. I am not an "entrepreneur". But I certainly appreciate all they do for the economy - the trickle down type.

Rising tide lifts all boats. And the inverse is true too. But, in the current economic environment, it is easy to jump on the bandwagon and claim that the "rich" had their unfair advantage. But during the boom time, I don't think I heard much of that. Federal government was raking in lots of tax revenue and everyone was in favor of the party to keep going. And of course, the trickle down economy worked too well, I should say.

As far as I am concerned, there is only one kind of economy and that is always the "Trickle Down Economy". I don't think it is such a bad word to say after all.

Greed

2008-10-15T20:00:00.004-04:00

You have been hearing a lot about Greed lately - as to how Wall Street's greed got us into this financial mess we find the world in. Let's examine.

According to Merriam-Webster:

Greed (Noun): A selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed

And yet in the history of human existence, it is greed that has propelled mankind to its current form. (And you can make the case with animals too).

In its simplest definition, it is "a desire for more of something". "selfish" depends on the point of view. It could be just that individual, a group, a class, a race or a nation. "excessive" and "needed" also depends on the point of view - the individual or the one looking at the individual; they are both very subjective.

Our sensibilities prevent us from admitting that "greed" is what motivates most of us. That does not mean that we all value money alone. We are all greedy for different things - fame or fortune. Celebrities try for fame (with it comes fortune too), but most of us would take fortune over fame.

Manny Ramirez's $160 million dollar deal is propelled by his 'greed'. And in return he livened RedSox nation with his bat. There have been many others during the same period in RedSox roster that did not quite have the 'greed', but neither did they entertain the crowd . (This is not a point about highly paid athletes.)

And on Good Morning America (when she was with NBC), Katie Curic lit into the supposed retirement package GE offered its retiring star CEO Jack Welch. And I am certain she has not appreciated the irony. At that moment, she was the highest paid executive at GE, not Jack; NBC being a fully-owned subsidiary of GE. If it were not for Jack's "greed", GE would not be what it is. And neither would Katie. And there in lies the rub.

We are constantly reminded by the anchors about Wall Street's greed. And it is their own greed that got them into that seat in the first place.

And then there are the academics - the arm chair pandits. "Greed" does not even describe them. And all of them got to where they are because of 'greed' - they just don't call it that. They call it professional rivalry or passion or ego. They claim they do it for 'fame' and not 'fortune'. Once again, I am not knocking them down. They deserve richly what they have worked hard for.

Back to Wall Street. So, there were some "greedy" CEOs. And they invested in these shady 'credit default swaps'. Did we as investors stop them? No. Why not? Because of our "greed". And to say that their 'greed' is bad, but our 'greed' is good is down right hypocritical.

We are often told, "they need to give the money back because the company is not doing good now". Fair enough. But what money should they give back? The compensation they received during their good years? How fair is that?

All of us, in our routine jobs make a lot of mistakes. And some of them are costly to our business. Would it be fair then for our employer to want to 'garnish' our wages for our mistakes? If we make too many costly mistakes, we could lose our jobs. And even CEOs do.

And then, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Nancy Pelosi, Barak Obama, John McCain,.... The list is endless. No, they are not in it for public service. They are in it for pure greed. Otherwise, most, with the exception of Obama (he hasn't been around long enough), should accept term limits and retire after 2 terms. Obama will be constitutionally forced to honor term limits (if and when he becomes the President).

So, I urge the rest of us "Average Joes", to not condemn "greed". But instead have the "greed" for any "thing" you desire. There is no satisfaction in not having the "thing" you desire - unless it can only be obtained through malice.

God Bless America.

Windfall Losses

2008-09-17T21:18:00.002-04:00

Just a few months ago, our politicians were screaming about "Windfall profits" of the Big Oil. They claimed that the greed led to the huge profit margins of the big oil and how they need to pay their fair share back to the American people.

Now pretty much the same politicians are claiming that Wall Street greed is causing those catastrophic losses.

So, is it fair to ask if Congress deems that Windfall profits be taxed, should windfall losses be compensated?

While our pols were hyperventilating about Windfall profits of Big Oil, oil quickly moved below $100 a barrel. And nary a peep about how that happened.

Republican Ticket

2008-09-17T18:20:00.004-04:00

A lot has been said about the Republican ticket since the Gov. Palin was nominated the VP candidate. And most of it negative attacks from MSM and the Democrats. I do not add or subtract from what has been said. These are simply my opinions about the Republican ticket.

Fiscal conservative: Not easy being a governor and a fiscal conservative. And especially if you are from Alaska. Even more if you are Republican from Alaska. Vice Presidents don't always sway the administration's fiscal policy. But Dick Cheney changed what a Vice President does (This might only be a GW legacy that might not last in a McCain administration).
Social conservative: Her family is a testament to that. And here, many play Gotcha about her pregnant teen daughter. But what you are does not always prevent such things. Even in the most closeted families, kids spend inordinate amount of time with their peers. This is a scenario most parents dread. And Gov. Palin's choices are commendable. And definitely not the ones left-coast liberals align with. A lot of us do agree with those choices and values that they represent.
Normal: She is normal. She is hard working. She did not go to Ivy league colleges. She has funny names for her kids. She sounds like most of my neighbors.

McCain is the original maverick. A lot has been said about how the Republican base is angst at his maverick tendencies. But most forget, he won the Republic nomination in Republican primaries (only hardened base voters vote in primaries). But picking Gov. Palin was the first thing he has done to acknowledge the concerns of the base. And it is good politics. (MSM will say, how dare he play politics?)

McCain's economic policies are good. His pronouncements are awful - just listen to his latest campaign ad. Thus giving us a pause as to which one he believes in. In these times, it is hard to say the right thing. We sure hope he knows the right things to do. I think his congressional record pretty much confirms that he knows them.

Over lunch today, one of my colleagues brought this topic up. And before I could say anything at all, another colleague pounced upon the topic - essentially declaring that all Republicans are fools for having made up their mind - because they vote for the party. In the same sentence he claimed that they are only voting because of Gov. Palin.

He was so condescending of my choices and essentially my intelligence that I decided to write this post. May be this is why we are rallying behind Gov. Palin's candidacy more than McCain's.

In the end, I had to leave the conversation by saying that, of the three only I could vote this November.

5 million new jobs

2008-08-19T21:31:00.004-04:00

The Ad says:

"The hands that built this nation can build a new economy. The hands that harvest crops can also harvest the wind. The hands that install roofs can also install solar panels. The hands that build today's cars can build the next generation fuel-efficient vehicles."

...

"Create five million jobs developing home-grown energy technologies because America's future is in our hands"

But if my roofer can actually fix the solar panels and more than likely my electrician can hook it up, where are the 5 million new jobs? Aren't they the 5 million existing jobs?

I guess that would be "Audacity of Truth".

$4

2008-06-10T10:03:00.005-04:00

I don't think I need a more descriptive title - everyone knows exactly what I mean. But most don't understand its direct message(s).

Conserve: No, most people don't get this message. They are quick to lash out at some "greedy" corporation increasing the price at whim. And of course, somehow the Bush administration is to blame. And the media does its round of disinformation.
Weak Dollar: Oil is dollar denominated. So, a weak dollar demands more of them for the same gallon. I don't expect general population to understand the economics behind it, what's with the Fed!!!

Conserve: Let's see. This weekend, during the "heat wave" in the north east, I drove to a local Best Buy. In an otherwise empty parking lot, I could find parking upfront. I parked next to a fairly late model Jeep (large) - noticed that the engine was running but no driver. I noticed couple of passengers inside. They must be enjoying music and the air conditioning. I went in, browsed for half-an-hour or so. When I drove off, that Jeep was still running - parked. What a colossal waste? If it is just air conditioning, store was very comfortable. And it wasn't crowded either. Aren't there better ways of generating electricity for that air conditioning than running a Jeep 4x4 (6 or 8 cylinder engine) idling in a parking lot? And I am sure this indigent driver would be happy to mouth off into a microphone if a reporter were to approach him/her about the price of gas - blaming some "invisible" corporation. Why are we so stupid?

And my favorite pet peeve - speeding. Especially, speed up to catch up with the car in front of you. Most modern cars come equipped with Gas Milage display. And it is pretty obvious that you get the most milage when you are driving steady. And yet people are constantly revving up to catch the next car ahead and put the breaks on to slow down. Each time burning more gas than the engine needs to keep the same pace. Most internal combustion engines (what every car has) operate optimally around 60-70 mph. Even if you don't drive a hybrid (I don't), by driving steadily on a highway, you can still get a respectable milage. I get 30 mpg on most days - driving about 60 miles round trip. I am often amazed how few people use cruise control.

Weak Dollar: What's with the Fed? Weak dollar has a huge following domestically - for all the wrong reasons. Its politically very popular. With a weak dollar, our exports are cheaper and hence more in demand overseas. So congressmen pressure both the Fed and the administration - both of which accommodate those popular items. The flip side of this is that all our imports, including oil is more expensive. And as American's are by far the largest consumers in the world, we are net importers of foreign goods. All of which is more expensive due to a weak dollar. Administration thinks that its public statements about "strong dollar" policy is enough to fool currency markets, which are closely monitoring administration's deeds.

And the Fed's easy money spigot. Is there any adult supervision going on over there? And everyone is defending the indefensible - the link between easy money and the weak dollar. All you need is common sense. But these guys are economists for crying out loud.

$4 gas is better than $10 that the Europeans pay. And our commodity markets do work. And prices do come down eventually. Not quite so in many other parts of the world.

Lapel Pin

2008-06-10T09:34:00.002-04:00

Check out the definition in Wikipedia. So, why has it become a controversy on the campaign trail?

Turns out, the media did not make it a big deal. Obama campaign made it a big deal. He was merely asked a question. And he could have chosen one of many benign responses. However, he chose to denigrate every one who puts on a display of their patriotism. And now he is the one complaining that it is being blown out of proportion.

Every time he is asked to answer some of his troubling associations and actions, he accuses every one else of blowing it out of proportion - anyone remember Rev. Wright.

So, what's next. If he is elected president, he would join anti-American protestors with a spontaneous display of flag burning!

Guilt

2008-04-29T19:02:00.003-04:00

Our society these days is full of guilt complexes. White guilt (or slavery guilt), western guilt, wealth guilt and the list goes on. But if you look under the covers, it is all guilt about things done by past generations. And none of the folks feel any guilt about things that they do every day.

Some level of guilt of ones own action is warranted and is healthy for the society. But guilt about the actions of the past generations is unnecessary and accomplishes nothing. In fact, it is counter productive.

Let's take White guilt. This is mostly an affliction of the liberal elite. And yet this guilt has not advanced any positive outcome in either race relations in America or the uplifting of the blacks.

On the contrary it has advanced a sense of entitlement. There are no slave holders nor slaves alive today. So, how is a government handout achieved through general taxation, fair to the current generation. Providing an equal opportunity is fair and available to one and all. This is after all the land of opportunity. Anyone who claims otherwise are ignoring the countless immigrants to this country that have succeeded.

And western guilt. This is a more global phenomenon afflicting the European elite. And it is the basic belief that their occupation of Asian and African countries resulted in their widespread poverty. Where is any evidence of that? British laid millions of miles of rail lines across much of Indian subcontinent - much of it for their own gain. And yet they did not rip it all off when they left (scorched earth policies of most vanquished armies). India wasn't even a single nation until the British rule. And then there are all these African nations. Their infighting is to blame for their current state. Assuming that the British plundered India and the African nations equally (and left around the same time), India is not remotely as bad as majority of sub-Saharan African nations today are. Once the Europeans left the scene, fate of Africa remained their own. And why does west agonize about that. And yet their actions now, with their farm subsidies really matter to poor African countries. That is what they can do to remedy. Not express guilt about a past generations actions.

And then there is guilt about being rich. If you earned every one of your dimes honestly, it does not matter if you have billions. There is nothing to be guilty about. Poverty exists no matter what you do. Because if you are not rich, then you are poor. And making it even worse for others. At least, with you being rich, we don't have to worry about you. Your personal philanthropy is great, but don't recommend socialist principles for the rest of us. You see this with Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. I don't have a problem with their success - just what they profess for us, high taxes.

And finally, the rest of us - the average Joes. Get rid of those guilt feelings about what your grand father may have done - either willfully or ignorantly. Think and feel guilty about things you do everyday, every little thing indeed. Did you speed today? Did you beat a red light? Ultimately, these things matter you know.

Prime Minister of United States

2008-04-02T20:48:00.001-04:00

He is running for the office of the President of United States. And yet on his campaign trail, he sounds like he wants to be the Prime Minister of United States. Of course, I am talking about Mr. Obama.

I can certainly understand his dilemma. As member of the most pompous deliberative body, his tendency is to debate, debate and more debate. However, that is his current job - not the job he is running for.

For as back in history as George Washington, almost every president had to fend off the legislature encroaching on constitutionally guaranteed privileges of the executive. So, in his stump speech recently, he was critical of Mr. Bush for not consulting the legislature. I think Mr. Obama fails to grasp the separation of powers as enshrined in our constitution. Or, it is merely an electioneering gimmick.

Each of the branches - legislative, executive and the judicial - have always been pushing the envelope of its reach throughout the existence of this nation. And each has been rebuffed by the other. From time to time, the balance has moved from one to the other. But overall, it has been a healthy balance. And all of that is enshrined in the 220 year-old document - our constitution.

So, Mr. Obama's proposal might even run foul of the constitution. But my own guess is that this is pure electioneering. If he were to be the president, he would be fighting the legislature just as much. We have an interesting spectacle in this election that all 3 remaining candidates are from the 'Most pompous deliberative body in the world'.

My transition is now complete

2008-03-26T18:54:00.000-04:00

For a long time, I was programming in Microsoft technologies. But I have always been proud to claim that I never programmed in Visual Basic. And for that reason and others, I have also always used Windows-based systems.

For many years, I believed the canard that the security vulnerabilities of Windows are due to its widespread use. And that if Unix or other systems were as popular that they would have as many vulnerabilities. This despite the fact that I worked with Unix systems exclusively for several years. How naive was that?

In 2000, my then boss set me on a course correction. He wanted me to perform a technology landscape evaluation for the benefit of the company. I reluctantly undertook that effort - knowing fully well what I would find. The result was an overwhelming recommendation for the company to shift its infrastructure to J2EE-based solutions. And inevitably, I would lead the charge to train, equip and mentor the developers to start J2EE development.

However, I continued to use Windows based systems at home. And increasingly getting frustrated with the security vulnerabilities. Even Swiss cheese has less holes than this operating system. Can we even call it an operating system? And every new release they tout as being better, is much more insecure than the one before.

So, I have been considering switching to Mac for a few months now. But never ventured into an Apple store - knowing that if I did, I would love what I see.

Finally, last weekend, I went to an Apple store with my wife and kid. I loved what I saw. What I had not imagined that my wife, usually not quick to want to buy something, loved it as much. I expected to hear excuses why we don't need to make the purchase then. Nope...nada. She liked it and we were buying one right away.

And, thus I came home with an iMac. For one thing, it is a piece of art. And then came the big surprise. Setting up a new computer is never easy - although, I like new toys. I pulled it out of the box, plugged it into a power outlet. Turned it on - voila, it picked up my wireless network - asked for the credentials, and tada...it is all set. Can there be anything more simple than that?

There is absolutely no reason that I can think of that a normal home user would buy anything but a Mac.

I consider my transition now complete.

What's not to love a Mac!!!

Maestro: Not so sure

2008-03-21T20:51:00.000-04:00

He had been the darling of the media - for much of the 90s and even recently. He is known as the Maestro - for his skillful handling of the US Monetary policy. He is the venerable Alan Greenspan.

I think he is a brilliant economist of all times. And a top notch Fed chairman too. And he is most well known for his 'irrational exuberance' comment. He was dead on. Except, the market did not tank after that comment. So, he too was more guarded later on. No one, apparently, even the Fed chairman wants to second guess the wild beast - aka, the Market.

My point is not to take any credit away from him. But to dispel the mystique about him.

Wall Street Journal always pointed out that the Fed uses trailing indicators and is always using its monetary policy in a reactive mode. It had warned repeatedly in and after 2003 that the Fed easy money policy will lead to huge problems in the future. And their analysis was simple. They were looking at forward looking indicators - dollar and gold.

Fed, although independent, is not immune to political pressure. And this is essentially what has led to this sorry state of affairs right now. And the media circus too. He reveled in that.

Poor Bernake had to inherit this mess. And also to live up to this out sized void of Greenspan. Not an easy task.

He was right in wanting to include Food & Energy back in the Core Inflation indicator. Any one but an economist can think of a 'Core Inflation' indicator without Food & Energy. Isn't that what people use and measure their well being based on that?

However, Bernake would not be able - at least at this time, to modify core inflation indicator. Political pressure is too great. It also happens to be an election year.

So, in conclusion, Greenspan deserves some weighted blame for the current mess in our markets. Maestro - not quite.

Evolution

2008-03-08T19:43:00.000-05:00

Each side of this debate will put me on the other side. I guess that would put me in the mainstream.

I believe in 'The Creator'. And I also believe in the evolution. It couldn't work any other way.

Let's look at the facts. Through our scientific discovery we know the expanse and the complexity of the universe. Just the multitude of beings on our planet (past and present) is so enormous that if the creator were to micromanage each of our concerns, he would be very busy.

I like this passage - a true story that happened in the beginning of the 20th century in South Africa. Gandhi (Indian Freedom fighter) was fighting for the just cause of liberating Indian miners in South Africa from bondage. And a young Charlie Andrews, a British clergyman who had a profound impact on Gandhi's life, visited Gandhi in South Africa. And the two were headed into Capetown. On their way they run into a gang of white kids who wanted to rough up the colored man and the priest. However, one of the boy's mother, unsure of her son's actions drives the boys away from the confrontation. At that point, Charlie remarks that they were lucky. And Gandhi, looking at Charlie's tunic, responds: "I thought you were a god's man." To which Charlie replies, "I am too modest to think that he (God) plans his days around my dilemmas."

This is a powerful statement coming from a devout Christian. Just think about it.

In the same way, I don't think "The Creator" - God, meant to create every being from scratch and control their destiny personally. Evolution, God's creation also, is at work. Beings were to evolve from the original creation, prosper, breed and die in a complex of circle of life. Everything we know in the Universe is interacting with each other and evolving. It is in a constant state of change. Call it whatever - but that clearly is evolution.

I enjoy Astronomy a lot. Read a lot about it and contemplate a lot about it.

Considering Big Bang - that is the handy work of "The Creator". And the primordial stew from which everything evolved till today and continues to evolve is his masterful creation. Can you think of anything more divine than that?

Scientists are hard pressed for any other explanation as to the "perfect mix" that led to this Universe - the one and only that we know and inhabit.

In conclusion, I think the creationists and the evolutionists need not be at odds with each other. No one theory is complete without the other.

Energy Independence

2008-01-05T21:19:00.000-05:00

Must be a code-word for something else. Otherwise, it is an oxymoron.

In this Universe, no 'Matter' is independent of 'Energy'. Einstein proved conclusively that matter and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. Everything needs energy.

From the earliest times in human history, men looked for energy. And always wound up with the most efficient way of getting that energy. This was evident even amongst cave men.

So, it essentially is a code-word for the enlightened greens' concern regarding human consumption of oil and such hydrocarbons. But at the current time, despite our technology, it is the cheapest form of energy. Otherwise, we would have moved onto something else - that is just human nature.

No other source of energy known to man is as efficient, as compact and as clean - all complaints to the contrary. One other source of energy, Nuclear - is as efficient, is neither compact nor clean nor safe. Can you imagine a wind-powered car?

Our congressmen and senators found a boondoggle known as Ethanol. It is neither efficient to produce it nor is it efficient to consume it. It takes 4 gallons of water to make 1 gallon of Ethanol - just during the extraction process. Add the 1600 gallons of water needed to grow the corn and you blow the economics of it all. Unfortunately, water is a relatively scarce commodity.

And proponents of wind-power want to erect wind mills every where. And for the ordinary folks, wind mills evoke the mystic of the lone, gigantic wind mills in the picturesque Netherlands. But the wind mills that would be erected are the modern contraptions - more functional than beautiful - and a whole lot of them. See, these are supposed to be powered by wind. With a string of them and the eddies they form, these wind mill farms will create wind patterns of their own. Wonder if anyone bother to run simulations of what such large wind mill farms would do to the wind patterns across our continent?

For sometime there was talk of Fuel Cells. And the best line was: they emit pure water vapor. Classic! And such a vehicle would consume hydrogen (its fuel) and oxygen from the air to emit pure water vapor. First let us think of the output: pure water vapor! Think - clouds. If a majority of the vehicles used fuel cells, our immediate problem would be the cloud cover - which then increases the albedo and that would result in - ta da...global warming. Then the inputs: I guess we humans now have to compete with these vehicles for the oxygen we breath. Next up, where do you get hydrogen from? Hydrogen is abundant in the universe. But here on earth - it is abundant in 2 forms: Water - inefficient to extract hydrogen from water, and "hydrocarbons" - isn't that where all of this started?

For one thing, corporations can do more to use solar power where they can. But it should not be due to egalitarian reasons - but largely based on efficient cost allocations.

I do not drive a large contraption. But neither do I like to be roadkill.

Until we run out of all forms of hydrocarbons or its use is inefficient and uneconomical, humans will continue to consume it. And when it does come to that, we would have moved onto the next optimal source of energy. This is how humans evolved.

Software Arsonists

2008-01-01T19:00:00.000-05:00

Society will never forgive a fireman who is suspected of setting fires to appear heroic. Fortunately, there have been only rare occurrences of such behavior. Not quite so with software.

A multi-billion dollar industry that is yet to solve a problem that is seemingly important to the end users. Each new release touts 'fixes' - to the problems the programmers have created in the first place. And we have to cough up more money for this new release. And you got to love the 'dated' versions of software.

In my organization, every one was cheering a group that has supposedly solved 'performance' problems in their application. I asked a simple question: Aren't they the same guys who wrote the over-engineered bloat-ware to begin with?

Don't get me wrong. I am part of that industry. And I have been young too. And I have had my share of bad programs. But over the years I have become more of a cynic.

See, I am an Electrical Engineer who drifted into Software for one simple reason. Yes, I admit it - money and opportunities to make money - modest by comparison to some other professions, but pretty good in comparison to some others.

Software is not an engineering discipline. And most respectable folks agree with that. Most engineering disciplines do not change as dramatically in such short time frame as does software.

My criticism is not contained to software vendors. Even at companies that can ill-afford to write and maintain software invariably end up with an IT organization. And those organizations have yet to fulfill their mission. Instead they are fixing their numerous blunders and getting paid to do so.

And even folks who do not use computers often have heard the standard fix for your 'computer problem' - just reboot. Every software programmer must ask himself this question: Does your doctor/surgeon have the 'reboot' option? And what would happen if doctors were more like software programmers.

Sure, there are some bad physicians too. And they get sued. Is it time software programmers get sued as well? I think so.

30-years of experience

2007-12-26T20:13:00.000-05:00

How did she come up with that? 30-years of experience with what? Politics? How so?

She was a young attorney during the Watergate episode. If she included that, it would be more like 40-years. After that she was just another attorney. While some attorneys (just a very few) do public service, most of them are just lining up their pockets - albeit performing a very important civic function. How could she include that in her resume?

Then she was the First Lady of Arkansas. That is not political experience - unless, she really ran the government while her husband was busy with you know what!!

Then she was the First Lady of US. And of course, she tried some politicking (Universal Health-care). And we all know how well it ended up. Well, she tried to defend her husband during the Lewinksky saga - somewhat effectively I should say.

Finally, as the Junior Senator from New York since 2000.

All I could count was about 10 or so years of political experience. How did it add up to 30? Don't most folks in their late-50s have about 30-years of experience?

And the big question is: Why did not any reporter bother questioning her math? Or, at least, ask her if that was all political experience?

Culture of Speed

2007-12-25T17:40:00.000-05:00

Not sure if this happens everywhere. But where I live (Bluest State), I see people either zipping past me on the highway or impatiently tailgating me on local roads. It is not like I am a slow driver. I always drive at the speed limit - no matter what the speed is or what my situation is. And I am not hogging the left lane either. So, here I am going at 65mph on the right lane and everyone else is zipping by me on the other lanes. And then there are all these impatient guys who want me to go fast - just so they can get off their exist at their pace. And it is not just the young. Everyone alike. And then there are those that don't even let you get into the right lane after safely passing someone who is slower (this does not happen often, but it still does).

And of course, there is the school zone. Teachers and parents with kids are flying by to the school. And here I am - not much to do with that school or its safety, but simply obeying the speed limit. Gosh, wonder what these teachers do teach!!

And the guys zipping past me when they see a cop is to SLAM their brakes and start going at 50mph. I am sure they have no idea what the speed limit is.

My question is this: Does any one realize that 'Speed Limit' is one of the most basic "laws" of a civil society? And it is not just when a cop is near by. Even if you have never been caught speeding, your civic duty is to not speed even when the cop is not around.

Car commercials don't help - it is all about zoom, zoom.