July 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
"LETTER TO THE EDITOR" MONTH
|
July 1, 2008
comments? |
To Whom It May Concern: The Supreme Court ruling overturning the Washington, D.C. ban on handgun possession has sparked heated debate on the meaning of the inartful wording and punctuation of the second amendment of the Constitution. A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. Does this say a person has the "right to bear arms", as the 2nd Amendment has come to be known? To answer this, we need to know what a "right" is? Is it something the government grants - or is it something the government secures? What have our elected leaders said on this important issue? They are silent. A central argument in the founding of this country as "united" states was the separation of powers. Local authorities issue laws. Under what circumstances can these laws be appealed "to a higher court"? Our political leaders questioning Supreme Court nominees have yet to ask this basic question. The Supreme Court's "Dred Scott" decision affirmed the abominable practice of slavery. Abraham Lincoln signed the "Emancipation Proclamation", freeing all slaves, the 13th amendment officially abolishing slavery, and the 14th amendment guaranteeing equal rights to all citizens, regardless of race. In this crucial issue are all three branches of government at work. What is the relationship between the Judicial, Executive, and Legislative branches of our system? Our elected officials and judiciary at all levels neglect to talk about this fundamental issue. The clarion call by many regarding important issues like the 2nd amendment is "let the people decide". What are the implications of a "pure" democracy? There is much more at stake in the Supreme Court overturning one local law. What are laws? What are the criteria for good / bad laws? Under what circumstances can they be overturned by different courts? Under what circumstances can judiciary opinions be put aside? "A REPUBLIC, IF WE CAN KEEP IT!" So said Benjamin Franklin at the close of the Continental Convention in 1787. Indeed. But to keep it, it is these fundamental ideas that must be addressed. Demand of our politicians they discuss these issues. Demand it of ourselves as well! Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 2, 2008
comments? |
Dear Sir: President Bush coined the phrase "axis of evil" to denote the regimes of North Korea, Iran, and Iraq. What is "evil" and how should it be dealt with - when it exists outside our borders? Must a country wait to be attacked, and reply accordingly, or are pre-emptive strikes appropriate? Under what circumstances? What constitutes appropriate evidence? I would like our elected officials to address these general issues. President Bush's post 9-11 attack on Iraq was the culmination of a decade of Iraqi defiance of myriad UN resolutions, in addition to evidence Saddam Hussein had not eliminated previously known chemical and biological weapons. Evidence showed Iraq still possessed these dangerous weapons; our intelligence communities agreed with this assessment. With this information, how should a policy-maker proceed in voting on a pre-emptive attack on such a regime? Ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia brought worldwide condemnation, United Nations intervention, and US involvement under a UN mandate. Under what conditions are US soldiers to fight under the umbrella of a non-US charter? A call from many US citizens regarding Iraq is, "Who are we to impose our form of government on them?" When we intervene in Sudan, are we not doing something similar? The killing of citizens because of their race or religion is abominable. Is the death of citizens living under dictatorial rule any less barbaric? I ask elected officials asked to talk specifically about "what they would do" in certain situations to talk as well about their philosophy undermining their decision-making process. Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 3, 2008
comments?
|
Editor: Payments to doctors providing services for Medicare-eligible citizens are, again, subject to a reduction - predictably. As the debt and deficit continue to concern elected officials, the Medicare-physician-fee-schedule is a convenient target to "save money". What profession or business can provide more services while receiving less in exchange? To absorb the loss incurred from this population, what must physicians do? Understandably, fees for services to the non-Medicare / non-Medicaid market increase. Is that the extent of the physician's actions? If you received 65 cents on the dollar for a similar service, to whom would you focus your services? The answer is obvious, and we predictably see physicians exiting the Medicare market. The actions of the federal government place the physician in a tremendous quandary: don't provide services to Medicare beneficiaries because of the financial burden - versus provide services to Medicare beneficiaries because of the Hippocratic Oath. Will our elected officials make this problem worse? Sincerely, Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
The Simultaneous Nature of the Predicted Yet Unintended
July 4, 2008
comments? |
As the price of a barrel of oil hovers around $150, the political climate is addressing the question, "What are we going to do? We're using too much foreign oil!" Are we? Part of me says if we were really concerned about the issue (as consumers), we'd want the price of a gallon of gas to soar to $5 / galloon - only then will we change out habits, and reduce consumption. I see no problem. For the sake of this argument, however, I will assume there is a problem. Why is this a problem? I've included "foreign" in the description of the problem above - is the issue one of importing? Likely not. We import many things, and although we talk of trade deficits, it's neither a serious nor sustained discussion. Perhaps oil is deemed "critical", and that's why we call this a problem. What would we like to see? "Self-sufficiency regarding critical resources"? Fine. There are many ways to achieve this - more plants, nuclear, solar, wind, etc. Let's focus on one specific debate: the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. We want to become self-sufficient regarding oil? Drill in ANWR. Of course, this is a huge issue - drill or not to drill. If there are significant reserves in the ANWR, why not drill? The answer usually centers about maintaining the environment, the habitat, etc. Wonderful. So we have an interesting dilemma: in order to have a good country, now and in the future, we need to be self-sufficient regarding critical national resources. To do this, we should drill in the ANWR. On the other hand, in order to have a good country, now and in the future, we need to maintain the beauty of the environment. Consequently, we should not drill in the ANWR.
An interesting dilemma. What has been the result of this interesting dilemma? Politicians have jumped aboard the ethanol bandwagon, affording tax incentives for the construction of ethanol plants for the production of alternative fuels. That's their solution. This seems reasonable, doesn't it? After all, the technology exists, and at least one country, Brazil, has shown ethanol-based fuel is possible on a large scale. But if we're to use corn from the field to create ethanol, where is it coming from? Surely, "we can't have our corn and eat it, too!" Corn once headed for the food-market is now headed for the ethanol plant. What happens to the price of food where corn is an element in the process? It will rise! Did the politicians anticipate this? Moreover, let's not forget we're a net-exporter regarding corn. We were. What farmer would agree to export his corn at one price when it can be sent to the plant at a subsidized higher price? But if this happens, what happens to those net - importers? They must now grow their own corn! How will then go about doing this? They will, likely, destroy forests to create fertile crop-land. And the unintended - yet predictable - effect is the releasing of more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere, in addition to food prices rising, and rain forests destroyed.
The Law of Unintended Consequences? Of course. But there's more here than this. These consequences, albeit unintended, are easily predicted! Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 5, 2008
comments?
|
To Whom It May Concern: When I travel, I frequently see soldiers in the airport in fatigues. Whether they are off to training, off to war, or returning from war I don't know. I do know I'm in a bind when I see them. I don't know whether to applaud or be silent. Our initial intelligence showed Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. This, coupled with many UN-resolutions being ignored, and the new world of "post 9-11", suggested a "preventive-strike" mentality. "Three cheers for the military"! Our intelligence was wrong. Dammit. These things we should not get wrong. The function of the CIA is to get it right. The job of the intelligence committees overseeing the FBI and CIA is to make sure these organizations are getting it right. The job of the military is to implement policies approved by the President and Congress. "Three cheers for the military"! Dammit all the rest! Why have you put our brave soldiers in this position? Why have you put me in this position? What have you done to make sure this will not happen again? Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 6, 2008
comments?
|
Wal-Mart has pulled from consideration Kansas City as
the host city for the Wal-Mart annual managers meeting, due to a lack of
hotel space within walking distance of Bartle Hall. City leaders find themselves in a bind. On the one hand, they claim, to have a grand city, you must attract major conferences. This requires a substantial increase in hotel rooms. Apparently, the private market has already determined this area cannot profitably sustain a larger hotel - else, there would be one here. Therefore, in order to attract a larger hotel, city officials need to provide "lucrative tax breaks" to secure such a building. On the other hand, to be a grand city, services must be paid for. We have a budget deficit. We have pot-holes covered by massive steel plates and a sewer system in need of major upgrades. The city can't afford to provide "tax breaks" to businesses when every tax dollar is needed for the city. "Provide tax breaks" versus "Don't provide tax breaks". What to do? What is typically done in such a dilemma? A committee is formed to determine the viability of the project, and a "sometimes 'yes', sometimes 'no'" policy is enacted. Check your premises, Kansas City. You'll find (at least) one of them is wrong. Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
The International Community and Africa
July 7, 2008
comments?
|
A recent "Letter to the Editor" concluded, "May God
give the international community the courage and wisdom to continue to
insist upon basic human rights for all people," regarding the deplorable
conditions in Zimbabwe and the sham re-election of President Robert Mugabe. The writer noted the importance of continuing to exert an enormous amount of pressure on Mugabe. What pressure? As for evidence this is not the case, Zimbabwe is a member of the UN, with the "universal declaration of human rights" proclaiming "recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world." What would we think of a law enforcement community embracing a thief, while simultaneously condemning thievery? One word comes to mind: hypocritical. International pressure has not worked in Zimbabwe. What will? Capitalism. What is capitalism? As Ayn Rand wonderfully summarized: "Capitalism is a socio-economicl system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." Sincerely, Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
On Open Letter to Dennis Moore
July 8, 2008
comments?
|
Good day, Representative Moore: I received a 4-page document from your office, "thanking me for contacting you", regarding healthcare issues. Though I made no such inquiry, I did take the time to read your views on healthcare. Is the job of a representative to solve problems? It seems you and your colleagues are hard at work. You've mentioned many impressive initiatives you're sponsoring or supporting. Workers complain of a low minimum-wage? Raise it. You've solved a problem and won some votes. What of the workers now not hired due to the increased cost to the business? Those non-workers have no idea a law with intended positive consequences lie at the root of their unemployment. The seen - and the unseen. But we often misinterpret the unseen as the unpredictable. Clearly, the logical consequences of the actions above are clear. Are they discarded by you and your colleagues? Are they even considered? Millions of Americans are uninsured? A quick fix: insure them. Insure everyone! Another in a long line of actions taken to "fix the health care crisis". Why, I hope you asked, are so many uninsured in the first place? What role has government policies on wage controls contributed? Tax policies to incentivize businesses to provide health care to employees apparently is not working. Why was it tried, and why has it failed? Medicare and Medicaid costs are soaring, with doctor reimbursements are predictably falling. What has this to do with the "crisis". Our borders are unsecured, and ERs across the country close. In the dynamics of any system, what impact, if any, do these events play? Your policies have unintended but predictable consequences. Has your recent directives taken any of the above into consideration? Covering one's mouth to mute a cough may address the spreading of germs, but it does not address the core problem. Sincerely, Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 9, 2008
comments?
|
Recent 5-4 Supreme Court rulings on gun control and
POW-status have shed light on an interesting - and tragic - situation.
We hear talk of the "liberal" justices, "conservative" justices, and,
occasionally, the infamous "swing vote". It's illustrative to ask, regarding a 5-4 vote, what is the status of an objective legal system if the best legal minds are divided? If a 5-4 vote is certain, is there any need for the majority party to convince the minority to change their minds? To debate? To discuss? To deliberate? No. What if the court was comprised of 10 justices? A 5-5 split means - get to work, or nothing happens. Good. What about school boards? Public commissions? Make them all an even number of representatives. The late Robert Mondavi, founder of Robert Mondavi Winery, said things well regarding a joint-venture, the philosophy applying equally to boards: "I did not want 51 percent control and I wouldn't take 49 percent. No way. I wanted a fifty-fifty split. Why? If you own 49 percent, you can be right in your decision making and it doesn't matter a bit; you still lose the vote. And if you own 51 percent and you make a fool decision, well, you're still the boss. With a fifty-fifty split, neither side can impose a decision. This way directors and shareholders have to sit down and air their differences and come to a mutual decision, for the good of the company. In my view, a fifty-fifty split builds cooperation and trust." Harvests of Joy Pages 153-154
Indeed. Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
The Logical Educational Extension
July 10, 2008
comments?
|
Struggling to achieve "adequate yearly progress" under
the mandates of NCLB, many educators, thinking long-term, have expressed
dissatisfaction at the abilities of the student - "by the time we get
them". "If only we could get them earlier, we'd be off to a great
start for kindergarten, and lower elementary. How to "get them" at an earlier age? Fully fund kindergarten. In fact, let's go one step further and fully-fund pre-K! This seems the logical next step in the relationship between public education and the government. Who could be against such a "well-intentioned" idea? Pause to consider the question: why are there so many Montessori 3-6 schools, but so few elementary schools? Yes, part of the reason is due to a lack of properly trained teachers. But is this the cause of the problem - or the effect? Many parents, seeking the best for the child, enroll their children in Montessori 3-6 programs. At the end of this period, parents are faced with a tough dilemma. Continue to pay for private education, or send their children to a "public" school. Let's be clear. They're really being asked to "pay once" or "pay twice". "$6,000 - $12,000" annually for something "you can get free" borders, for most people, on no choice at all. What happens if the same question is lowered to the 3-6 environment? Is the likely outcome any different than the choice described above? And if the choice becomes no choice, and many parents move their children to "fully-funded" schools, what becomes of the Montessori 3-6 environment? The private educational system in general at that lower level? Can it survive? The threat is real. The logical consequences obvious. Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
LAW ENFORCEMENT and RACIAL PROFILING
In Search of a Reasoned Response
July 11, 2008
comments?
|
Recent Kansas action
regarding law enforcement and racial profiling is good. In our country,
where all have equal rights under the law, it’s essential to demonstrate
this equality is carried out as well in fact. How do we do this? "Collect the data" is the clarion call. Show whether law-enforcement racial profiling by the Kansas law enforcement community is taking place - or not. What data? Where do we start? Our good friends to the east, Missouri, have been doing this for 8 years now. Why not replicate what they've done.
What have they done - and how has it worked?
Let’s see. What does their recent data show?
This ominous statistic suggests blacks are pulled over alarmingly 66% more frequently than whites. The racist perception seems confirmed! But if the ratio is 1.66 now, imagine what it must have been when the data collection process first started in 2000. Surely, with all the attention, data collection, and improvement initiatives, things are getting better, right? Let’s take a look at the historical data:
What is the Missouri Attorney
General, Jay Nixon, doing about all of this? They’re collecting massive
amounts of data, the data seems to show racism, and it’s getting worse.
What is he saying about it? What action items have come from the
process? The remarkable similarity in
the AG’s annual executive summary provides a hint. Each year, the
summary statistics are changed, dates updated, and a caveat added,
alerting us the data doesn’t tell the whole story. That’s it. Is there
no action to be taken from this data? No – and the Attorney General and
every law enforcement department in the state of Missouri knows it as
well. The data is meaningless. Is there racial profiling
taking place in Kansas law enforcement? Let’s collect the proper data to
properly answer the question. Are there rogue officers leading to a
general perception? The data should find them. Bad apples don’t have to
spoil the bushel. If there are bad apples, find the apples. Are officers
unconsciously making stops based on race? Let’s find out and bring this
to the conscious level and improve it. Is everything fine, and the
perception simply not correct? The data should show this as well. Data
used in this regard is information. Mirroring Missouri only asks
the proposed full-time analyst to spin straw into gold when given wrong
data. Let’s be sure Kansas does not follow the same tragic Missouri
footprints in this regard. The stakes are too high – the issue too
important. Let’s work to create a
process that ensures action, if warranted, will be taken. Our Kansas
citizens deserve this. Missouri citizens as well deserve this! Rather
than site Missouri as an example to follow, let’s ourselves be the
leaders in actionable task-force recommendations, from which Missouri
can follow.
Michael Round Statistician: Rational Systems, Inc. Educator: Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
HONESTY: Consistency Between Words and Actions
July 12, 2008
comments? |
The debate over the viability of light rail in Kansas City apparently is over. The question isn't whether it's coming, but how will it be implemented?
On the ballot for years, the initiative surprisingly received a majority of participating votes in a recent election. "Ask him again, ref" is the motto coming to mind, the image of one wrestler with an arm lock on another. Eventually, the attack subsides when one gives in.
Is this how government should work?
The initiative passed - a specific plan - and immediately, it was ruled impractical by the local government.
Is this how government should work?
A majority of voting individuals voted in favor of the initiative. Will even they use the light rail system? In the wonderful book, A Splendid Ride: The Streetcars of Kansas City, Monroe Dodd talks about the above initiative (from the perspective of 1998, 1999, 2000, and again 2001):
"Why did light rail proposals keep popping up, only to be shot down? A poll commissioned by The Star in 1998 gave a clue.
Asked
whether the metropolitan area needed a rail-transit network, a whopping
three of four residents said yes. Asked whether they were likely
to ride such a system, the numbers dropped sharply."
A Splendid Ride Page 196
Honesty is deed consistency with word. Hypocrisy is the opposite.
Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
An Open Letter to Lance Armstrong and Alonzo Mourning
July 13, 2008
comments?
|
With the passing of Tony Snow yesterday, I'm reminded
of the following letter: ------------------------
Gentleman: I applaud your athletic achievements. Put aside your health issues, as your skill itself puts you at the top of your professions. To this, add the work-ethic you're both known for, and WOW! Role-models indeed! Then, considering what you've both gone through, and you both are inspirations to those who have been crippled with cancer and kidney issues affecting so many. You do give people hope. I'd like to talk about your message of a good mental attitude. The mind is a powerful thing! Who could be against a message saying "You've got to have it right up here ... it all starts with the head." When a loved one succumbs to this deadly disease, a man who was the most powerful man I've ever known, both physically and intellectually, with a spirit of optimism triple that of any group of men combined, I must admit I cringe when I hear the words "It all starts with your head ... that's the key." Is the alternative message: "Give up?" Hardly! What I take from my Dad's death from cancer is the following message: "The road is a tough one. I've got great doctors and an unbelievable spirit to overcome anything. Good things and bad might happen, but I'm going to keep living. That's what it's all about." Again, congratulations to your athletic achievements and to your continued good health. Your stories are inspiring. Mike Round www.theroundfamily.com A postscript to this thread ... Lance was asked this week about what he considered his greatest accomplishment: winning the tour or beating cancer, and he said beating cancer. I cringe at such words, however well-intentioned. As though EFFORT was essential to success, a consequence possibly being if one has not beaten cancer, it's somehow due to a lack of effort! Of course, it'd be nice if the media - a SINGLE MEDIA PERSON - pointed this out.
|
|
What is the Meaning of “Sampling”?
July 14, 2008
comments? |
To Whom It May Concern: Senator Obama held a double-digit lead over Senator McCain in a recent pole. The pole, it was reported, had a margin of error of +/- 3%. The newest pole had the two Senators in a dead heat. How can this be? Have a large portion of eligible voters suddenly made up their mind for Senator McCain? What new has come out to convince a voter to change their minds? If not this, then what? Were "different" people poled in each sample? Should this matter? The purpose of a sample is to represent the whole. Does it? Is this what the "plus or minus" accounts for? If so, why did the change (from one pole to the other) exceed the margin of error? Supposing the change from one pole to the other had been within the margin of error, how should this be reported? One candidate closes the gap? The survey shows the candidate differential remains unchanged? What is the proper role of the media in reporting such figures? How should they be reported? Sincerely,
Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
July 15, 2008
comments?
|
As November elections approach, I wonder the
relevance of "voter apathy" in a recent school-bond election. The lead editorial for The Olathe News, October 13-15, 2007, lamented low voter participation for the coming school bond issue. Are citizens “lazy, uninformed or apathetic”, as the editorial concludes? Despite the district sending brochures home with students, direct mailing, e-mails, and text messages reminding voters to vote, only ¼ of eligible voters have voted. How can this be? Despite myriad meetings of staff members, the bond task force, board meetings tweaking the plan, and special editions of the newspaper, ¾ of the community responsible for paying for the bill have not weighed in. Why not? The editorial says “We can’t hold the district accountable.” On the contrary, I believe it is precisely the district that should be held accountable. The bond task force was tasked with the responsibility of developing informed recommendations for the future of the district. They did. Among their recommendations were grade reconfigurations and a call for a significantly higher bond. The former recommendation was pursed with diligence by the district by repeated presentations by more task forces. The latter recommendation was never considered at all. Why create a bond task force if this was to be the result? What was the result of the educational campaign to convince voters of the grade reconfiguration? A firm was employed to find this out. A vast majority of the citizens, having been subjected to the educational campaign, said either they were against reconfiguration, or they were not sure. The firm surprisingly concluded voter education might sway such voters. How did they reach this conclusion? They don't say. The board itself voted in favor of the measure, despite evidence to the contrary in front of them. Why conduct the survey if the results were inevitable? The board provided no answers. And to make matters worse, to me, was the “political calculation” of the final bond dollar amount: $138 million. Where did this number come from? I can only guess the sound of "one hundred forty-something" didn't sound good. What is the relationship of this final amount to anything in reality? We were not shown. The numbed voter understandably views this whole process with disgust and distrust. The district creates a bond task force to generate recommendations, and then discards them. The district employs a firm to gauge “the pulse of the voter”, and then discards this information. The district finally pulls a bond amount out of thin air with nothing more than political calculation, and, adding insult to injury, tells us this is the result of a multi-year process involving the community. Nonsense. And the crushing blow: it’s our fault because we don’t vote. To me, the message of the average eligible voter is clear: a non-vote is a reluctant "yes" to a process they know has not made sense. With the influx of students in our district, they realize more schools must be built. That much makes sense. But be careful what you wish for: collect our money while calling us lazy, uninformed or apathetic and you may get the precious voter turnout you desire, and you may not like the results.
|
|
THE NATURE OF "BIAS" IN REPORTING
July 16, 2008
comments?
|
Image doctoring has been in the media lately, as the media has been
taking hits for "touching up" photos. Of course, doctoring a photo by
definition distorts reality, but an incorrect inference is the original
photo DESCRIBES reality.
A larger part of the reporting process, however, is why the particular image was shot in the first place. Of all images a reporter could submit, why focus on the French President in a boat (to use the recent photo-doctoring incident as an example)? Does submitting the undoctored image "move us closer to the truth"? Why did the reporter claim this to be news in the first place? War coverage is a further example. Iraq is a big country. Reporters cover "what's happening" and submit images. Undoctored images don't necessarily mean "truth", as this is but a small part of "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth". What is one to do, then? Walter Shewhart's first rule for the presentation of data, taken from Donald Wheeler's book, Understanding Variation, assists in this regard: "Data should always be prsented in such a way that preserves the evidence in the data for all the predictions that might be made from the data" This is a start - a great start.
|
|
July 17, 2008
comments?
|
The "Rise and Fall" of NY Governor Spitzer may seem a "tragedy" to commentators. This commentator instead sees government at its worst - using laws as silly putty, non-objectively and selectively attacking businesses for personal gain, all-the-while violating the same laws.
The great R.W Grant wrote the following poem regarding the nature of "improper" laws and a government running wild ...
The Incredible Bread Machine By R.W. Grant
This is the story of a man whose name Was a household word: a man whose fame Burst on the world like an atom bomb; Smith was his last name; first name Tom.
Now, Smith, an inventor, had specialized In toys, so people were surprized, When they found that he instead Of making toys, was BAKING BREAD!
The way to make bread he'd conceived Cost less than people could believe! And not just make it! This device, Could in addition, wrap and slice!
The price per loaf, one loaf or many, The miniscule sum of under a penny!
Can you imagine what this meant? Can you comprehend the consequent? The first time yet the world well fed, And all because of Tom Smith's bread.
A citation from the President, For Smith's amazing bread, This and other honours too, Were heaped upon his head!
But isn't it a wonderous thing, How quickly fame is flown? Smith, the hero of today, Tomorrow, scarcely known!
Yes, the fickle years passed by, Smith was a millionaire, But Smith himself was now forgot, Though bread was everywhere...
People, asked from where it came, Would very seldom know. They would simple eat and ask, "Was not it always so?"
However, Smith cared not a bit, For millions ate his bread . . . And everything is fine, thought he, I am rich, and they are fed!
Everything was fine, he thought, He reckoned not with fate. Note the sequence of events, Starting on the date,
On which the business tax went up. Then, to a slight extent, The price on every loaf rose too - Up to one full cent!
"What's going on?" the public cried, "He's guilty of pure plunder! He has no right to get so rich on other peoples hunger!"
(A Prize cartoon depicted Smith, With fat and drooping jowls, Snatching bread from hungry babes, indifferent to their howls!)
Well, since the public does come first, It could not be denied That in matters such as this, The Public must decide!
So Anti-Trust now took a hand, Of course, it was appalled At what it found was going on. The "Bread Trust" it was called.
Now this was getting serious, So Smith felt that he must Have a friendly interview With the men in Anti-Trust.
So hat in hand, he went to them. They'd surely been misled; No Rule of Law had he defied. But then their lawyer said:
"The Rule of Law, in complex times, Has proved itself deficient. We much prefer the Rule of Men, It's vastly more efficient!"
"Now let me state the present rules," The lawyer then went on, "These very simple guidelines, You can rely upon:"
"You're gouging on your prices if You charge more than the rest. But it's unfair competition if You think you can charge less!"
"A second point that we would make To help avoid confusion . . . Don't try to charge the same amount, That would be Collusion!"
"You must compete. But not too much, For if you do you see, Then the market would be yours - And that's Monopoly!"
Price too high? Or Price too low? Now, which charge did they make? Well, they weren't loath to charging both, With Public Good at stake!
In fact, they went one better! They charged "Monopoly!" No muss, no fuss, oh, woe is us! Egad, they charged ALL THREE!
Five Years in jail, The Judge then said "You're lucky it's not worse! Robber Barrons must be taught, Society comes first!"
Now bread is baked by government. And as might be expected, Everything is well controlled. The Public well protected.
True, loaves cost a dollar each, But our leaders do their best! The selling price is half a cent.. Taxes pay the rest.
|
|
Honesty in Reporting
July 18, 2008
comments?
|
Airbag Deployment A Recent Controversy The Kansas City Star ran a lengthy investigative article recently on the failure of airbags in crashes resulting in fatalities. A controversy arose between the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Star, as the NHTSA told the Star reporters the database used by the Star wasn’t suited for the investigation they were doing. The Star went ahead, nonetheless. Let’s put aside their dispute and investigate the issue ourselves. We want to investigate airbag effectiveness. They’re supposed to save lives, right? Let’s see how effective they’ve been. How would we start? A simple start might be, “Airbags should deploy when there’s a crash. If they don’t and someone dies, there’s a problem. How frequent does this happen?” I don’t know the numbers, but let’s suppose it’s 2,000. A large number. 2,000 preventable deaths because the airbag didn’t deploy. Why didn’t the airbag deploy? Is the airbag intended to deploy every time there is contact between a vehicle and something else? Do we want it to deploy when we bang a shopping cart, for example? Of course not. But what constitutes an “acceptable deployment criteria”? Let’s investigate this further – but later. Our 2,000 number above makes the inference if the airbag had deployed, the people would have lived. Is this reasonable? Of all the vehicle-related deaths, surely airbags deploy sometimes, right? How frequent is this? Most cars on the roads now have airbags, so most deaths probably occur even though airbags do deploy. Let’s investigate this number as well, if for the only reason of getting “the lay of the land” regarding this topic. There is another issue here that gets lost in the discussion of life and death: it’s tempting to say, “Let’s err on the side of safety and have the airbags deploy every time the car strikes something. Moreover, because of the frequency of rear-end and side collisions, let’s install airbags everywhere to better protect us.” A noble thought – but one that comes with cost. If the average cost of an airbag is $500, and every time it deploys it must be reinstalled by a professional at a cost of $500, is it economically feasible to have “false-deployments”; that is, airbag deployments where there would likely have been no harm to the passengers?
A Simple Start What could we do to concretely get started – to do our own investigation? Let’s see how big the problem really is. A start might consist of looking at two issues: 1. did the airbag deploy (yes or no); 2. was there a fatality (yes or no).
My thought is most crashes do not result in a fatality. They’re minor, the airbags deploy, the seatbelts work, whatever the reason. Further, my guess is whenever there is a fatality, the airbag did deploy, but the deployment did not prevent the death. My guesses – but let’s quantify them, and see what this might look like. Let’s suppose we have 100 crashes: Airbag Deployment My Expected Quadrant
Some interesting thoughts come to mind: If the majority of deaths occur even though there is an airbag deployment, why focus on the minor number where there was no deployment? Why not focus on the question, “Why are these people dying, despite a deployment? How many of the “non-fatalities with deployment” would have been non-fatalities without deployment? That is, if I have my seat-belt on and in I’m in a minor crash, I would have been perfectly fine, and suddenly the airbag deploys in my face. There appear to be many “tradeoffs” the industry and the public make in this regard. Further, what role does “seat-belt use” play in this discussion? Airbags are technically termed a supplemental restraint device (SRD), so a further cut of the data might include the question, “Of all fatalities, how often was the occupant wearing a seat-belt?” More work to follow …
|
|
The Hypocrisy of the Church regarding "Separation of Church and Politics"
July 19, 2008
comments? |
The land and building are not subject to taxation.
Members' weekly contributions are tax deductible. And what must
churches do in receiving such preferential treatment? They must
abstain from political endorsements. Of course, the theological clarion call remains to engage church-goers in relevant matters of society. Talk of politics? Indeed. Just don't "endorse" a candidate. Remove your churches 501c3 status, theological community, play by the same rules as the rest of us, and you can completely participate in the political process! Equal rights for all? The Orwellian double-speak suggests "all people are equal - but some people are more equal than others". The hypocrisy will, I suspect, reach a crescendo come November, when the religious community will invoke the First Amendment regarding political endorsements and the need for "equal treatment", simultaneously invoking the same amendment to be treated differently!
|
|
July 20, 2008
comments?
|
We took the train to Chicago last week, and, with light
rail a visible subject in the Kansas City area, thoughts have come to mind
about travel - in general. As the price of gas creeps towards $3.50 / gallon, for example, one thought is: do driving habits really change? I'm certain I've not curtailed any habit because of the price of gas. "Have I?" is one question. Another is: "Would I ever?" If the price soared to $10 / gallon, would this change my habits? $20? Of course. Of course there's a point where I would carpool or put off a trip. But even this logic needs to be clarified, I believe. Ask a person two years ago if they'd pay $3.50 / gallon, and would they change habits, and the likely response would be "yes". Here we are, and they're not. Why not? Likely it's because the price of gas has crept up, and we find ourselves like the proverbial frog in the pan. Does it take abrupt changes in the system to extract change from the system?
A Thought About Change For the time-being, I'd like to concentrate on light-rail, and more generally, about change - in demographics and logistics. "Suburban-sprawl" is a term said with denigration. That's neither here nor there; what I want to take a peek at is why it happens. A starting point may be this: there are many people in the city. We were an agricultural society. We became an industrial one. People flocked to the cities for work. Now they're in the city, and it's a new day. Crowded. Dirty. Yes - dirty. People want openness. To get away from this. To have a yard. To live in - the suburbs.
Of course, it's one thing to want to live in the suburbs. It's another to make it happen. Let's not forget our job is still in the city. We need to get back and forth to our job in the city, which means meaningful transportation. A good highway system.
But does the "system" stop here? Of course not. With a better highway system, more urbanites see an opportunity to move to the suburbs effortlessly! The highways are bigger and more convenient. And with this - what happens - inevitably? More people move to the suburb! But with more people living in the suburb, what is the natural and clarion call? Better highways to get us to the city!
Closing Thoughts Does such a system ever reach an "equilibrium"? Probably. All systems with feedback loops do - I think. But what constitutes "equilibrium"? Maybe that's not the right word, because great Roman cities of millions of people were vacant decades later. Gold towns in the west become deserted. Cities can dry up. "Equilibrium" is not the right word. This feedback loop cannot continue infinitely - that's what I'm searching for. But what are the costs? Are there any? Is a grand 6-lane highway system careening from city to city what we want? Are the suburbs what we want? Is a deserted downtown what we want? Were there alternatives to "suburban-sprawl"? How many people would flee the city if they had to pay for the upkeep of the highway system? How many people would have moved to the city in the first place if they had to pay for the development of those costs? What constitutes a "good city"? What are we looking for? And is highway transportation the only means to get from here to there? And here we end up, rethinking the initial consideration in today's article: what about light-rail? In the process of researching this issue, and cable, trolley, and interurban rail in the Kansas City area, I came upon an extraordinary item: there once was a light-rail system extending from Olathe to downtown Kansas City - 100 YEARS AGO! The Strang Line Interurban ...
Sadly, where does the political discussion of the above start - and stop? Suburban sprawl is a bad thing - and it must be fixed. Is it bad? Must it be fixed? The above discussion was simply one of logistics. By what standard is it bad? Where should the discussion even start? The questions seem similar - and are similar - to the discussion here ...
|
|
July 21, 2008
comments?
|
Olathe News sports editor Tod Palmer's recent 3-part
series on youth and athletics pointed out "the lay of the land",
discussing recruiting, year-round sports, traveling teams, etc. It didn't go far enough. The focus on high school athletes deflected attention from the real problem facing athletes and parents: youth athletics. The same traveling teams mentioned in Palmer's article exist at the elementary and middle school level. Traveling to different states each weekend and practicing year-around; this is, to me, the troubling trend in youth sports. Coaches arrogantly holding "try-outs" to be on their "exceptional" teams need take a look in the mirror and ask what it is they're attempting to accomplish at this young age. Parents of youth wishing to try-out for such teams need to ask themselves the same question. And holding "try-outs" of 50 - 100 kids for your exemplary teams is not possible. You can't possibly "grade" all players in your short period of time. Parents: the alternative to "year-round" participation is not to play lots of sports simultaneously! Many sports throughout the year? You bet! Many sports at the same time? You cheat not only your child, shuttling the exhausted tot from activity to activity with nary the time to practice either seriously, but also your child's teammates, who are practicing outside the normal practice / game routine. Sincerely, Michael Round
|
|
July 22, 2008
comments? |
The Woodlands, it's reported, will close August 24. Their last gasp of air was evacuated when state law regarding possible slot machines demanded of every $1.00 made, they were required to give up 80 cents to the state and local governments, keeping only 20 cents for themselves. There once was a name for a process whereby one was "allowed" to do business at a price: protection racket. A protection racket, according to Wikipedia, is an extortion scheme whereby a powerful entity or individual coerces other less powerful entities or individuals to pay protection money which allegedly serves to purchase "protection" services against various external threats. This properly describes the role of government in this instance. Tragically, there is a role for government in here: the protection of rights - and not their violation. And what is the state of a society where the government partakes in the violation of rights as a course of action? Quoting from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: "What I actually am, Mr. Reardon, is a policeman. It is a policeman's duty to protect men from criminals - criminals being those who seize wealth by force. It is a policeman's duty to retrieve stolen property and return it to its owners. But when robbery becomes the purpose of the law, and the policeman's duty becomes, not the protection, but the plunder of property - then it is an outlaw who has to become a policeman." Atlas is indeed shrugging. Michael Round
|
|
THE VISUAL DISPLAY OF INFORMATION
July 23, 2008
comments? |
County Commissioners: August 5th offers Johnson County residents the following ballot initiative. Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas, renew and continue to impose in Johnson County, Kansas, that one-fourth (1/4) of one cent countywide retailers’ sales tax now scheduled to expire on December 31, 2008, with the proceeds from the tax to be distributed as required by law to the county and the cities in Johnson County, and dedicate the county share of the revenue to both capital costs and operating costs related to public safety programs, including the County Sheriff and detention facilities, Med-Act, emergency and dispatch communications, and corrections, and to programs for the administration of justice, including courts, District Attorney, and other county legal services, which will include both the operations related to those programs and the acquisition, construction, repair, maintenance, and/or improvement of real and personal property, buildings, and other structures necessary for those county government purposes?
Dismiss, for a moment, the fact the amount of money "to be distributed as required by law" is not provided. Disregard, for a moment, the fact the current allocation of money (including schools) will change with this initiative - and this change is not included. Focus merely on the sentence itself. That's right. The sentence. The sole sentence. One of the longest sentences I've ever seen. Horrible. The visual presentation of information is often applied to graphics only. Wrong. It applies to information - and everything is information! Have we not learned anything from history? The debate over how schools may currently use the funds from this tax are a result of the poorly worded ballot the above intends to replace! Shall the Board of County Commissioners of Johnson County, Kansas, renew and continue to impose, for an additional period of three (3) years, ending on December 31, 2008, a one fourth (¼) of one cent countywide retailers' sales tax in Johnson County, Kansas, with the revenue from the tax to be distributed as required by law to the county and to the cities in Johnson County, and the county share to be used as follows: first, to annually fund and award economic development and public benefit grants to public school districts located in Johnson County, Kansas, up to a total annual amount equal to the amount of grant funds, including supplemental grants, awarded for calendar year 2005, to be used to maintain educational opportunities, for technology, for special education needs and for other purposes authorized by state law, and second, the remainder, if any, to be used for public safety purposes and for capital projects of the county, including the acquisition, construction and/or improvement of real and personal property, roads, bridges, and other buildings or structures necessary for county government purposes? September 27, 2005 Johnson County "Special Polls Election"
Sincerely, Michael Round
|
|
July 24, 2008
comments? |
It's been over three years since the landmark "Kelo v.
City of New London" eminent domain case, where individual houses were
seized by the local government, the land to be given to private
developers, with the land to be developed for "economic revitalization". How's the economic revitalization going?
wikipedia image It looks grand, you may believe, until I tell you the economic development is in the foreground! Weeds have replaced bulldozed homes, with no economic development in sight. None is in the future. The fault here lies not in the execution of the seizing of property for economic development. Had the plans materialized flawlessly, it's still a bad plan. Because this is a moral issue.
|
|
July 25, 2008
comments?
|
Local elections are upon us, with candidates'
advertising their worth (and their adversary's lack thereof). One advertisement glorifies how the incumbent has "been good" to his constituency, showing how "jobs have been created" and government projects "brought" to town. His opponent's record, on the other hand, is lambasted as that of a "Washington Lobbyist", working for "special interests". When the "special interest" is ourself, it's apparently OK to send a representative to government to "bring home the bacon". But it's not OK when that bacon is delivered to the table of someone else. Abraham Lincoln was once asked how many legs a dog had, if you call a tail a leg? He responded: Four - just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one. Similarly, there is little difference in saying a "candidate is working for our interests" and a lobbyist "working for special interests". The issue of "distribution of the bacon" lies at the heart of the issue, and the apparent contradiction above resides in the notion the "bacon" can be delivered - by government.
|
|
ADVANCED PLACEMENT - RECONSIDERED
July 26, 2008
comments?
|
Billy was excited. He had scored a '4' on his "AP
Calculus" exam, exempting him from "Calc 1" at the local university,
allowing him to move directly to "Calc 2", giving him 5 credit hours, and
saving him $1200.
Billy was ahead of the pack and on his way to an earlier - and cheaper - graduation. Billy arrived at the University in mid-August, and immediately found himself behind in "Calc 2". What was wrong? He was bright. His high-school GPA was 4.1, reflecting the number of "advanced" courses he had taken. What was wrong? His Calc 2 teacher tested Billy, and called Billy to the office Friday afternoon. The news was shocking: "Billy: from the pre-tests and evaluations we've done, we're going to put you in the "Pre-Algebra / Trigonometry" class. You can still sign up for it, and you can get caught up quick. In the spring, you can take Calc 1, and you'll be on your way!" Billy left the office confused. His "quick exit" from the university had just been prolonged! What had happened to his high-school assessment he was past "Calc 1", when now he was getting sent to a class below it? This is, sadly, a true story. It's a frequent story. But why?
|
|
July 27, 2008
comments?
|
"You can have me hat or me bum-ber-shoo, but you'd
better never bother with me ol' bam-boo!" So says Dick Van Dyke in "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang". But what does it mean? Where does the research take us in reviewing the lyrics to this song? We learn of the seaman's gaff, the quarterstaff of the merry men of Robin Hood, and the ruddy swords on the Spanish plains. We punt along on the beautiful Thames, are a collier in the pits o' Wales, fly an airplane with our stick, and drive an automobile, the wheels of which revolve around a shaft! And we are informed of numerous references to the item above our head - the umbrella, the parasol, and the bumbershoo. Not bad for one song in one musical. They deliver entertainment! They deliver messages! They deliver education! Long live the musical!
|
|
July 28, 2008
comments?
|
To Whom it May Concern: The 1910 major league batting race is remembered as a down-to-the-wire competition between Nap Lajoie and Ty Cobb, the close race most remembered for Lajoie bunting for hits seven times in the season-ending double-header, enticed by a 3rd-baseman intentionally playing deep. Cobb was officially awarded the title because of the obvious assault on the integrity of the game. But is this the whole story? The story above does not say anything about Cobb who, believing himself comfortably ahead, chose to sit out the final two games of the season. The story above does not say why an opponent would want Lajoie to reach base. The latter we do know: the opposing coach, liking Lajoie and disliking Cobb, was behind the facade. The former? We can only speculate. Finally, the story above suggests the motives were the title itself. Is there more to the story? At the beginning of the season, Hugh Chalmers, President of the Chalmers Motor Company, promised a new automobile to the major league leader in batting. Would either action (Cobb's early retirement and Lajoie's bunting transgressions) have taken place had no such award been in place? Where else - in baseball or society - do awards distort behavior? Destroy team or business morale? Take away from the genuine joy in learning? Michael Round Center for autoSocratic Excellence
|
|
The Simultaneous Nature of the Predicted Yet Unintended
July 29, 2008
comments?
|
