The sad state of newspapers is something never far from my mind. I'm a black-ink addict and value what a free and vibrant press contributes to our civic discourse and our democracy. Unfortunately, the dailies are hemoraging more red ink than they are printing black. Readership is down, advertising is down, spirits are down.
Much of this has been attributed to the dessertion of young people from the daily paper habit. They get their news on-line.
Why bring this up yet again? This mornnig I was reading Tony Wagner's excellent book, The Global Achievement Gap: Why Even the Best Schools Don't Teach the New Survival Skills Our Children Need -- and What We Can do About It (the sub-head is way too long, Tony). Wagner argues that while children may be learning to read, they "are not learning how to think or care about what they read." Much of this he attributes to "teaching to the test" where teachers spend far more time preparing students get ready for standardized tests then teaching them to think critically. In other words, we are creating a generation of people who don't know why what is in the newspaper is important (whether it appears on- or off-line) nor do they know how to use what they read well enough to ask tough questions or reason through complex issues.
The consequence, however, is not just that we may be losing the chance to get our fingers dirty reading each morning, but that we will lose a vital pillar of our democracy because we aren't raising students who understand what it means to be well-informed. Blogs and Facebook applications alone won't do it.
This is an unintended consequence of having the media be part of the Wall Street economy. The news outlets give the market what it wants (or try to); those that try to deliver what they think their mission mandates may kill themselves financially. This is one time that I think markets are wrong. We must have a robust press if we are to have a robust democracy.
I'll report more on this book when I finish it. In the meantime, I can only hope that serious education reform is high on the agenda of the incoming Obama administration and that anyone with thoughtful advice -- Democrats, Republicans, Independents, hell, Socialists and Communists, too -- is invited to help solve this pressing problem.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
A New Morning in America
I have to admit that I was nervous last night. I voted early and then spent the day canvassing in the nearest battleground state. I saw the energy and excitement, the lines at the polls, and the army of volunteers. In my head, I knew that Obama would be our next president and that a victory would likely be by a significant margin. I was doing what I could to to help. But still, as the early returns came in, I was nervous that something was going to snatch this away.
This morning, the energy and excitement are still there and nothing can change the outcome now.
So how did it happen? Why was Obama successful where Kerry and Gore were not?
There will endless disection of McCain and Palin's missteps and opportunities lost as well as Obama and Biden's successful moves. In the end, however, I think that there are four major causes:
- First, divisive politics has played itself out. It seemed that even those who played that game were sick of it. It's exhausting. Any government that emphasizes ideology too much over practicality unltimately falls in on itself (no matter what the ideology). People have real problems and, here among the general populace, it is pretty obvious that the challenges we face are enormous and that it is going to take all of us pulling together to solve them. Obama has tapped into that desire to be one country again.
- Second, the kid came to play. Obama's team ran a campaign designed to win. From the fund raising to the efforts on the ground, these folks understood that they had to organize, mobilize, and execute. Although the big bucks get the attention, the innovation, discipline, and execution were an equal part of the victory. Howard Dean may be the unsung hero here as he was the one pushing for a 50-state strategy early on; coupled with Obama's message and delivery, it was a strategy that just out-matched McCain.
- Third, the next generation is ready to take on the responsibility of leadership. With McCain's defeat and Obama's victory, we are seeing a true generational transition. The contest in four years will feature Obama and a Republican from his age cohort. Stepping up to shouldering our challenges comes just in time because there is plenty of work to do. This is when we of the post-WWII/post-Vietnam cohort step out of the shadows and look the future square in the eye.
- Fourth is luck. Had the economy melted in December instead of October, the outcome of the election might have been different. Show me a successful candidate who thinks luck wasn't a factor in his or her victory and I'll show you one who is lying.
We should be proud that we have elected our first African-American president. It is a divide that needed to be crossed. We have not worked out all of the issues of race relations but we have raised them to a new (and hopefully more productive) plateau.
We should also be proud of the roles that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin played in this race. Though neither of them will be in the White House this time, no one will be surprised when a woman is on a national ticket again nor will we be shocked if she wins. In fact, we'll be surprised if a woman isn't on the ticket. That glass ceiling has been shattered.
Senator McCain was particularly gracious and generous in his concession speech. If we had seen more of that John McCain in the campaign, he might have been delivering an acceptance speech instead. It was not to be for Senator McCain but we should all be proud of his long and continued service.
I was drawn to Senator Obama early in the primaries. Despite the lack of a long resume, he inspired me in ways that the other candidates did not. I felt that was important -- as important as the ideas and the specifics (or lack thereof) in the policy proposals. But the job we have before us will not be solved by one man no matter how charismatic he may be. He is going to need us to be as passionate, as involved, and as ready to work as we have been over the past two years. We didn't just elect him; we elected us.
This morning, the energy and excitement are still there and nothing can change the outcome now.
So how did it happen? Why was Obama successful where Kerry and Gore were not?
There will endless disection of McCain and Palin's missteps and opportunities lost as well as Obama and Biden's successful moves. In the end, however, I think that there are four major causes:
- First, divisive politics has played itself out. It seemed that even those who played that game were sick of it. It's exhausting. Any government that emphasizes ideology too much over practicality unltimately falls in on itself (no matter what the ideology). People have real problems and, here among the general populace, it is pretty obvious that the challenges we face are enormous and that it is going to take all of us pulling together to solve them. Obama has tapped into that desire to be one country again.
- Second, the kid came to play. Obama's team ran a campaign designed to win. From the fund raising to the efforts on the ground, these folks understood that they had to organize, mobilize, and execute. Although the big bucks get the attention, the innovation, discipline, and execution were an equal part of the victory. Howard Dean may be the unsung hero here as he was the one pushing for a 50-state strategy early on; coupled with Obama's message and delivery, it was a strategy that just out-matched McCain.
- Third, the next generation is ready to take on the responsibility of leadership. With McCain's defeat and Obama's victory, we are seeing a true generational transition. The contest in four years will feature Obama and a Republican from his age cohort. Stepping up to shouldering our challenges comes just in time because there is plenty of work to do. This is when we of the post-WWII/post-Vietnam cohort step out of the shadows and look the future square in the eye.
- Fourth is luck. Had the economy melted in December instead of October, the outcome of the election might have been different. Show me a successful candidate who thinks luck wasn't a factor in his or her victory and I'll show you one who is lying.
We should be proud that we have elected our first African-American president. It is a divide that needed to be crossed. We have not worked out all of the issues of race relations but we have raised them to a new (and hopefully more productive) plateau.
We should also be proud of the roles that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin played in this race. Though neither of them will be in the White House this time, no one will be surprised when a woman is on a national ticket again nor will we be shocked if she wins. In fact, we'll be surprised if a woman isn't on the ticket. That glass ceiling has been shattered.
Senator McCain was particularly gracious and generous in his concession speech. If we had seen more of that John McCain in the campaign, he might have been delivering an acceptance speech instead. It was not to be for Senator McCain but we should all be proud of his long and continued service.
I was drawn to Senator Obama early in the primaries. Despite the lack of a long resume, he inspired me in ways that the other candidates did not. I felt that was important -- as important as the ideas and the specifics (or lack thereof) in the policy proposals. But the job we have before us will not be solved by one man no matter how charismatic he may be. He is going to need us to be as passionate, as involved, and as ready to work as we have been over the past two years. We didn't just elect him; we elected us.
Monday, October 27, 2008
Jenna v. Elizabeth
I'm watching a documentary on the Windsors on PBS. It's a glowing portrait with nary a negative word -- one of those classic admiration fests. But still I was struck during the footage on WWII that then Princess Elizabeth volunteered for the Ambulance Corps. She may not have done much beyond attempt to change a tire for the benefit of the cameras, but she donned the scratchy uniform and gave the feeling that they were all in the fray together -- from the palace to the trenches.
It made me wonder why we'd never seen a Bush daughter doing something similar during our many years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has lost a sense of common purpose and sacrifice for the greater good. It was both dishonest and dishonorable for President Bush to have taken the nation to war without asking everyone to sacrifce. While bullets flew in the desert it was tax cuts on the home front. IEDs ripped through Humvees while Americans cruised happily to the mall in their SUVs.
We have been a divided nation for too long. While the war should never have been started, once the tanks were rolling there should have been a concerted effort to bring people together through sacrifice. It is yet another opportunity missed by this administration.
It made me wonder why we'd never seen a Bush daughter doing something similar during our many years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The United States has lost a sense of common purpose and sacrifice for the greater good. It was both dishonest and dishonorable for President Bush to have taken the nation to war without asking everyone to sacrifce. While bullets flew in the desert it was tax cuts on the home front. IEDs ripped through Humvees while Americans cruised happily to the mall in their SUVs.
We have been a divided nation for too long. While the war should never have been started, once the tanks were rolling there should have been a concerted effort to bring people together through sacrifice. It is yet another opportunity missed by this administration.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Free Christopher Buckley!
I'm fascinated by the ouster of Christopher Buckley from the National Review. I know Christopher a bit and he's a smart, funny guy. He certainly is capable of making up his own mind and is more than articulate.
The part that amazes/outrages me is that he had to offer his resignation, and that it was accepted, because he expressed his own opinion. He looked at two candidates and picked one. Isn't that what America is all about?
Granted, the first amendment was an amendment. It's a bit like the leather package you pick for a car -- it wasn't on the original spec sheet but you chose it and it came with the car. Freedom of speech means that speaking your mind shouldn't get you pushed out the door.
Peggy Noonan was also in the firing line after her "Failin' Palin" column in the Wall Street Journal. Peggy didn't go so far as to endorse Obama but said that Palin had yet to make a sufficient case for herself. When I went to offer my comments, the other commenters were vociferous in calling for her to be tossed off the pages of the WSJ. I tried to offer come to her defense, it's the least a gentleman can do, but comments were closed.
The Republican party of Bush/Cheney/Rove reminds me of the Communists under Mao when ideology trumped all. Smelt iron in the backyard to give power to the people even though the iron was lousy. Make the farms communal even though food production plummets. Clamp down on any press that doesn't agree with you.
And so we are back in 2008. Buckley, Noonan, who else? What kind of country have we become when you can't say what you think without consequences?
The part that amazes/outrages me is that he had to offer his resignation, and that it was accepted, because he expressed his own opinion. He looked at two candidates and picked one. Isn't that what America is all about?
Granted, the first amendment was an amendment. It's a bit like the leather package you pick for a car -- it wasn't on the original spec sheet but you chose it and it came with the car. Freedom of speech means that speaking your mind shouldn't get you pushed out the door.
Peggy Noonan was also in the firing line after her "Failin' Palin" column in the Wall Street Journal. Peggy didn't go so far as to endorse Obama but said that Palin had yet to make a sufficient case for herself. When I went to offer my comments, the other commenters were vociferous in calling for her to be tossed off the pages of the WSJ. I tried to offer come to her defense, it's the least a gentleman can do, but comments were closed.
The Republican party of Bush/Cheney/Rove reminds me of the Communists under Mao when ideology trumped all. Smelt iron in the backyard to give power to the people even though the iron was lousy. Make the farms communal even though food production plummets. Clamp down on any press that doesn't agree with you.
And so we are back in 2008. Buckley, Noonan, who else? What kind of country have we become when you can't say what you think without consequences?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
The Spin Cycle -- RNC style
I didn't watch as much of the RNC as I did the DNC -- a bit of convention fatigue plus the abbreviated schedule -- but I did catch the speeches by both Sarah Palin and John McCain. I give Palin credit for the excellent delivery of a ho-hum speech and McCain demerits for the mediocre delivery of a better speech.
Palin certainly knows how to charm a room. She pauses naturally for the laugh and applause lines, knows when to wink or smile to reinforce a point, and chums the water with base bait like a pro (then again, she once was a commercial fisherwoman). She did smile too much, as did McCain though in her case I chalk that up to those years of beauty pageant training. When you are making a serious case, you need a serious face.
When she spoke about her own story, she was compelling. When she launched into distortions of Obama's stated positions and other partisan mud-slinging, she lost me entirely. I heard the "red meat" but had to ask: Where's the beef? The speech was extraordinarily light on concrete policy recommendations or other substantive material.
McCain is not a natural speech maker and it shows. His speech was well-crafted -- especially when he took his own party to task in order to reburnish his credentials as a maverick. But for too much of the speech, he would deliver a line and then smile like a kid who had made it successfully through a difficult fingering exercise on the piano.
When he spoke about his past and about his desire to change Washington, he was compelling. The blatant pandering to the party base and his distortions of Obama's positions were also awkward and off-putting. He didn't feel comfortable in his own skin while he was doing it.
Of course so much of the conventions is about spin and counterspin. It matters less what the candidates say than how it is interpretted by the pundits afterwards. Palin's selection had several Republican spokespeople spinning in reverse as you'll see in this brilliant video montage from The Daily Show.
Palin certainly knows how to charm a room. She pauses naturally for the laugh and applause lines, knows when to wink or smile to reinforce a point, and chums the water with base bait like a pro (then again, she once was a commercial fisherwoman). She did smile too much, as did McCain though in her case I chalk that up to those years of beauty pageant training. When you are making a serious case, you need a serious face.
When she spoke about her own story, she was compelling. When she launched into distortions of Obama's stated positions and other partisan mud-slinging, she lost me entirely. I heard the "red meat" but had to ask: Where's the beef? The speech was extraordinarily light on concrete policy recommendations or other substantive material.
McCain is not a natural speech maker and it shows. His speech was well-crafted -- especially when he took his own party to task in order to reburnish his credentials as a maverick. But for too much of the speech, he would deliver a line and then smile like a kid who had made it successfully through a difficult fingering exercise on the piano.
When he spoke about his past and about his desire to change Washington, he was compelling. The blatant pandering to the party base and his distortions of Obama's positions were also awkward and off-putting. He didn't feel comfortable in his own skin while he was doing it.
Of course so much of the conventions is about spin and counterspin. It matters less what the candidates say than how it is interpretted by the pundits afterwards. Palin's selection had several Republican spokespeople spinning in reverse as you'll see in this brilliant video montage from The Daily Show.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Words Can Move
I am in awe at the level of oratory in evidence at the Democratic National Convention this past week. At a time when media is fragmented and attention spans are even more so, when ear buds seal out the outside world, when we're all Facebooking, blogging, and twittering, it was wonderful to have four evenings of well-crafted, superbly delivered speeches.
From Kennedy, to both Clintons, both Obamas, Gore, Biden, and more, we heard words that informed and inspired. You might not agree with the politics but you have to admire the level of public discourse. These speeches both preached to the choir and challenged the opposition. They set forth lofty goals and practical policy direction. They started conversations, at least in my circle, and brought focus to the importance of the election ahead.
I am grateful for the break from the attack ads and blathering pundits. Words still have power. Oratory is alive. Let's hope the Republicans can keep the level high.
From Kennedy, to both Clintons, both Obamas, Gore, Biden, and more, we heard words that informed and inspired. You might not agree with the politics but you have to admire the level of public discourse. These speeches both preached to the choir and challenged the opposition. They set forth lofty goals and practical policy direction. They started conversations, at least in my circle, and brought focus to the importance of the election ahead.
I am grateful for the break from the attack ads and blathering pundits. Words still have power. Oratory is alive. Let's hope the Republicans can keep the level high.
Monday, August 25, 2008
How Much is That Puppy in the Window?
The last time I got a dog, it was easy. Then again, I was young and naive. It was a simple trip to the shelter at 92nd and York, picked out a pooch, and headed home. Sure, choosing a border collie/spaniel mix was a bit nuts given that I lived in a studio apartment in Manhattan. But he was such a cutie.
He was also a triple reject and came with claims that he couldn't be housebroken. With a little love and structure, he was easily housebroken. In fact, he was curb trained. There was a learning curve, sure, but we wound up having 12 great years together.
This time around couldn't have been more different. There were many more considerations about breed: small enough for the city, mellow enough to live with a persnickety cat, and non-shedding. That led us to seek out Cockapoo breeders.
The nearest one didn't return our outreach calls. The next one required that we clear our schedules for at least four months and not leave the pup alone for more than two hours (and that commitment was just the first step in the approval process). The third required a four page application that was similar in depth to the vetting for a spot as candidate for Vice President.
Finally, the fourth (the farthest, the most expensive) had pups available and mad
e it no more difficult (and only slightly less expensive) than buying a Porsche. Truth be told, the breeder was a great help. She set us up with lots of supplies and answered all of our questions.
e it no more difficult (and only slightly less expensive) than buying a Porsche. Truth be told, the breeder was a great help. She set us up with lots of supplies and answered all of our questions.Once we had our little guy (and he is a cutie), things got even more complicated. Which vet to choose? Which trainer to engage? Which puppy socialization group to join? To crate train or not? What about doggy day care? The questions cascade like a spilled bag of kibble.
The vet and breeder told us to keep contact with other dogs to a minimum until he had had all of his shots (16 weeks). Then the trainer said that weeks 12 - 14 are critical to his socialization. Screw this up and we'll need to engage a doggie therapist later on. We decided to take our chances and he's enjoying his canine companions.
We've engaged, I'm almost afraid to admit, a Zen dog trainer. Grasshopper, when you can snatch this training treat from my hand... She's great, but I do feel like we've crept a bit too far up Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
The search for doggie day care keeps me up nights. Friends have conflicting recommendations and the online reviews for each provider seem to range from "they make my little darling feel like a king" to "my little darling came home with a gaping chest wound that no one at XXX seemed to notice." There's even a puppy prep school.
I am going out to buy several pair of cargo pants as each walk requires paper for picking up droppings, treats to reward the dropping process, a flashlight after dark, and occassionally the puppy training manual for last minute reference in the field. We've even found a doggie water bottle that flips down for easy Fido sipping and that clips onto my belt.
I wouldn't trade this dog for anything, but I miss the days when a dog was just a dog.
Sunday, August 10, 2008
An Energy Policy, Please
Thank you to the New York Times for today's "Energy Fictions" op-ed piece. Both McCain and Obama are doing disservice to the energy issues before us. The blathering about thumbs up or down on offshore drilling, proposed windfall profits taxes, proper tire pressure, and the rest just nibble at the edges. These are tactics when what we should be talking about is an energy policy. We need to move the focus off of the price of gas this week or next and talk about what we're going be doing for the next 10 to 20 years.
It's sad when Paris Hilton offers the most coherent take on an energy policy.
First, we don't need energy independence. We don't have food independence or clothing independence. What we need is strategic interdepedence. We don't need to stop importing oil from Canada or Mexico -- they are our friends and neighbors. We need a broad, unbiased look at all of our energy options from solar to nuclear. We need investment in basic science that can help fuel the growth of a world-class alternative energy industry. We need a President who will craft and implement an energy policy that panders neither to Big Oil or the most strident environmentalists.
We're going to have to blend energy sources to meet our needs. We consume a lot of energy and we have increasing competition for fossil fuel resources from China, India, and other emerging economies. We need to get as serious as Finland (yes, Finland) in facing this critical challenge that will have such impact on individuals and businesses across the country.
It's sad when Paris Hilton offers the most coherent take on an energy policy.
First, we don't need energy independence. We don't have food independence or clothing independence. What we need is strategic interdepedence. We don't need to stop importing oil from Canada or Mexico -- they are our friends and neighbors. We need a broad, unbiased look at all of our energy options from solar to nuclear. We need investment in basic science that can help fuel the growth of a world-class alternative energy industry. We need a President who will craft and implement an energy policy that panders neither to Big Oil or the most strident environmentalists.
We're going to have to blend energy sources to meet our needs. We consume a lot of energy and we have increasing competition for fossil fuel resources from China, India, and other emerging economies. We need to get as serious as Finland (yes, Finland) in facing this critical challenge that will have such impact on individuals and businesses across the country.
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Boycotting Olympic Ceremonies
I am boycotting the Olympic opening ceremonies in support of the people of Tibet, a free press, and a free Internet in China. I will watch the Games themselves in support of the Olympic ideal of peace and productive engagement through athletic competition as well as of the athletes themselves.
This boycott is highly symbolic as I'm just not watching TV. However, symbolic action by ordinary citizens is important if we are to make concrete progress on human rights, freedom of expression and protest, and democracy.
China's model is a dangerous one: free markets without protections for speech, religion, the right to vote, or other basic rights we enjoy in the West. People are too easily seduced by rising standards of living to fight for the rights that will give them greater control over their lives and their government. That's the bet that the ruling powers in Beijing are making.
Unfortunately, its not much different than the bet made by the Bush administration after 9/11. When Bush told the nation to "go shopping" he was urging them to indulge in material comfort rather than worry about the draconian measures being taken to reign in rights under the guise of the war on terror. The lack of greater protests in the streets over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the abuse at Abu Graib, and other outrages can be attributed, in part, to the generally good economy up until 18 months ago or so. So long as you could still fill up your cart at Wal-Mart (or Gucci), why worry?
Might that be the ultimate trump card of authoritarians? Let the people shop and they won't care about much else. Religion may have been the opiate of the people in Marx's time but consumer goods seem to have taken its place in the 21st century.
So, as much as it may be a small tree falling deep in the forest, I am boycotting the opening ceremonies tomorrow night. I won't see the commercials of the sponsors. I won't help the network make its numbers. Consider joining me.
This boycott is highly symbolic as I'm just not watching TV. However, symbolic action by ordinary citizens is important if we are to make concrete progress on human rights, freedom of expression and protest, and democracy.
China's model is a dangerous one: free markets without protections for speech, religion, the right to vote, or other basic rights we enjoy in the West. People are too easily seduced by rising standards of living to fight for the rights that will give them greater control over their lives and their government. That's the bet that the ruling powers in Beijing are making.
Unfortunately, its not much different than the bet made by the Bush administration after 9/11. When Bush told the nation to "go shopping" he was urging them to indulge in material comfort rather than worry about the draconian measures being taken to reign in rights under the guise of the war on terror. The lack of greater protests in the streets over the war in Iraq, the Patriot Act, the abuse at Abu Graib, and other outrages can be attributed, in part, to the generally good economy up until 18 months ago or so. So long as you could still fill up your cart at Wal-Mart (or Gucci), why worry?
Might that be the ultimate trump card of authoritarians? Let the people shop and they won't care about much else. Religion may have been the opiate of the people in Marx's time but consumer goods seem to have taken its place in the 21st century.
So, as much as it may be a small tree falling deep in the forest, I am boycotting the opening ceremonies tomorrow night. I won't see the commercials of the sponsors. I won't help the network make its numbers. Consider joining me.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Home Delivery is (pre) Fab!
I was fortunate to visit Home Delivery, a new exhibit on pre-fabricated housing now at the Museum of Modern Art in New York today. It is an engaging history of pre-fab along with a display of five new prototype dwellings that have been built in a parking lot adjacent to MoMA.
Attempts at pre-fabricated housing have been made since the Industrial Revolution with a particularly active period in the early 20th century. Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Edison, Walter Gropius, Moshe Safdie and a host of others – some well known, others not – have tried to use industrial methods to make home construction faster and cheaper. They’ve tried metal, concrete, wood, container cars, trash – an amazing panoply of materials.
But pre-fab housing has never generated great enthusiasm from the public. Perhaps we all want to see our homes as individual even though many of us live in condominium buildings, sub-divisions, planned communities, and other configurations where there is more similar than different between our dwellings and those of our neighbors.
There’s a real divide between those designers who want to see what new materials and processes they can use to bring efficiency to what we think of as a home and those who want to use new materials and processes to reshape what we think of as a home. Edison’s poured concrete houses, some of which can still be found in Union, New Jersey, don’t look pre-fabricated at all while Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 is obviously a construction of identical concrete cubes.
The prototypes displayed outside are particularly fun because you can go inside most of them.
There is the Cellophane House – a steel structure with a clear skin that absorbs solar energy. It’s a three-story, two-bedroom, two-bathroom Modernist dream. There are two balconies and a roof deck. And it’s all hyper-efficient. Next to it is a one-room “shotgun” house designed for post-Katrina housing in New Orleans. It is made of plywood and features gingerbread details reminiscent of the original shotgun houses in the Big Easy. There’s a metal cube that puts a full range of amenities into a space under 80 square meters (just don’t be tall or like to walk around much). Its designer intends this unit for young single people without a lot of possessions.
All of the new prototypes emphasize environmental consciousness and control of the accumulation of physical possessions. It’s a IKEA mentality of simplicity, function, and lack of clutter. I don’t think that these designs will gain great acceptance in the U.S. either except perhaps in areas where they are a superior alternative to a FEMA trailer. We love our space – the average American home has doubled in size over the past 25 or so years – and we love our stuff. There are parts of the world, however, where any of these units would be a vast improvement over what people are living in now. The ingenuity, the innovation with materials and construction, and the commitment to sustainability, however, are all adaptable to homes even Americans could love.
Attempts at pre-fabricated housing have been made since the Industrial Revolution with a particularly active period in the early 20th century. Frank Lloyd Wright, Thomas Edison, Walter Gropius, Moshe Safdie and a host of others – some well known, others not – have tried to use industrial methods to make home construction faster and cheaper. They’ve tried metal, concrete, wood, container cars, trash – an amazing panoply of materials.
But pre-fab housing has never generated great enthusiasm from the public. Perhaps we all want to see our homes as individual even though many of us live in condominium buildings, sub-divisions, planned communities, and other configurations where there is more similar than different between our dwellings and those of our neighbors.
There’s a real divide between those designers who want to see what new materials and processes they can use to bring efficiency to what we think of as a home and those who want to use new materials and processes to reshape what we think of as a home. Edison’s poured concrete houses, some of which can still be found in Union, New Jersey, don’t look pre-fabricated at all while Moshe Safdie’s Habitat ’67 is obviously a construction of identical concrete cubes.
The prototypes displayed outside are particularly fun because you can go inside most of them.
There is the Cellophane House – a steel structure with a clear skin that absorbs solar energy. It’s a three-story, two-bedroom, two-bathroom Modernist dream. There are two balconies and a roof deck. And it’s all hyper-efficient. Next to it is a one-room “shotgun” house designed for post-Katrina housing in New Orleans. It is made of plywood and features gingerbread details reminiscent of the original shotgun houses in the Big Easy. There’s a metal cube that puts a full range of amenities into a space under 80 square meters (just don’t be tall or like to walk around much). Its designer intends this unit for young single people without a lot of possessions.
All of the new prototypes emphasize environmental consciousness and control of the accumulation of physical possessions. It’s a IKEA mentality of simplicity, function, and lack of clutter. I don’t think that these designs will gain great acceptance in the U.S. either except perhaps in areas where they are a superior alternative to a FEMA trailer. We love our space – the average American home has doubled in size over the past 25 or so years – and we love our stuff. There are parts of the world, however, where any of these units would be a vast improvement over what people are living in now. The ingenuity, the innovation with materials and construction, and the commitment to sustainability, however, are all adaptable to homes even Americans could love.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Inflation vs. Imagination
While it is only in the past few months that Fed chairman Ben Bernanke has focused on inflation as a threat to our economic well being, it has been obvious for several years that it has been having a detrimental effect on American families. The consumer price index, the most broadly referenced statistic on inflation, has looked benign for a long, long time but the CPI doesn’t take into account costs like healthcare and higher education – both of which have been skyrocketing for more than a decade.
Ask the wage earners you know what they are concerned about and you’ll likely hear about health care costs, saving for retirement (which has a large health care component), and putting the kids through college. These fundamentals have been getting more and more expensive – and increasingly out of reach for even middle-class families. Layer that with the recent inflation in food and energy costs (likely to last five to ten years according to the experts I speak with) and you can see the storm clouds darkening.
Ask those same wage earners if they would trade our system for the European model with higher taxes but universal health care, college tuition, and generous government pension programs and they’ll likely shriek and label you a Commie sympathizer. Better to keep the money for yourself so that your fate is in your own hands.
But of course most people don’t save enough to take care of any of these needs. College is increasingly funded through loans (that’s debt, kids) and the national savings rate is at just about zero.
There are debates about how the savings rate is calculated but, in any event, basic building blocks of economic mobility are becoming less and less attainable for more and more people. The amount of debt being carried by the average family increasing. Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by unexpected medical expenses.
The underlying issue that I see is that it is increasingly difficult for one to live what I call a “rich poor” life. A rich poor life is what your old English and Math teachers likely lived. They didn’t earn a ton of money but they could afford a house, healthcare came from the job and the deductions weren’t overly burdensome, and retirement was covered through a traditional pension plan. They managed to live interesting lives – traveled, went to the symphony, ate out now and again -- and could do it rather frugally.
That is increasingly difficult to do. First, as mentioned above some of the basics for long-term economic stability are harder to attain. Second, with the expansion of easy credit it has been easy for everything to go upscale. That quaint out of the way inn is now likely a quaint out of the way inn and spa with rooms at $500 a night rather than $50; the little Italian joint is now a fancy trattoria where the pasta is $20 a plate. A cup of coffee has morphed into a $4 latte.
It was in this context that I read about Berea College in today’s New York Times. This college in Kentucky charges no tuition, requires that its students work on campus, and handles almost as many students as prestigious Amherst College. Best of all, those graduates enter the world with no student loans to pay back. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all graduates were as fortunate.
Wouldn’t it be a grand goal to set for ourselves to have every graduate from an accredited college or university leave campus with no financial debt to the institution? Imagine if instead of starting one's working life able to save and invest rather than pay back?
Berea is interesting because they have dared to think differently about how – and why – they provide an education. It is a pretty bare bones place but that is how they make their model work. Imagine if we could spread that imagination both to other educational institutions and also to other facets of our lives.
Imagine if we, as a society, put $2,000 into an interest-bearing retirement account for each child born in the U.S. The principal could be automatically repaid when the child turns 18 but the accrued interest could be the beginning of a retirement fund. Eighteen years of compounded interest can be significant.
Imagine if we thought about optimizing outcomes rather than spending so much time trying to ratify processes through ideological filters that worry about public vs. private.
Imagine.
Ask the wage earners you know what they are concerned about and you’ll likely hear about health care costs, saving for retirement (which has a large health care component), and putting the kids through college. These fundamentals have been getting more and more expensive – and increasingly out of reach for even middle-class families. Layer that with the recent inflation in food and energy costs (likely to last five to ten years according to the experts I speak with) and you can see the storm clouds darkening.
Ask those same wage earners if they would trade our system for the European model with higher taxes but universal health care, college tuition, and generous government pension programs and they’ll likely shriek and label you a Commie sympathizer. Better to keep the money for yourself so that your fate is in your own hands.
But of course most people don’t save enough to take care of any of these needs. College is increasingly funded through loans (that’s debt, kids) and the national savings rate is at just about zero.
“US consumers’ savings rates are among the lowest in the OECD. They always have
been, but the wedge has widened in recent years. Back in the early 1990s, US
consumers saved about 7% of their disposable income. By the latter 1990s that
was down to the 4% level, and in the new millennium the rate sank to 2%. This
dropped further – close to zero – as booming growth continued. Americans spent
nearly all that they earned in the 2005-07 period.”
There are debates about how the savings rate is calculated but, in any event, basic building blocks of economic mobility are becoming less and less attainable for more and more people. The amount of debt being carried by the average family increasing. Half of all personal bankruptcies are caused by unexpected medical expenses.
The underlying issue that I see is that it is increasingly difficult for one to live what I call a “rich poor” life. A rich poor life is what your old English and Math teachers likely lived. They didn’t earn a ton of money but they could afford a house, healthcare came from the job and the deductions weren’t overly burdensome, and retirement was covered through a traditional pension plan. They managed to live interesting lives – traveled, went to the symphony, ate out now and again -- and could do it rather frugally.
That is increasingly difficult to do. First, as mentioned above some of the basics for long-term economic stability are harder to attain. Second, with the expansion of easy credit it has been easy for everything to go upscale. That quaint out of the way inn is now likely a quaint out of the way inn and spa with rooms at $500 a night rather than $50; the little Italian joint is now a fancy trattoria where the pasta is $20 a plate. A cup of coffee has morphed into a $4 latte.
It was in this context that I read about Berea College in today’s New York Times. This college in Kentucky charges no tuition, requires that its students work on campus, and handles almost as many students as prestigious Amherst College. Best of all, those graduates enter the world with no student loans to pay back. Wouldn’t it be wonderful if all graduates were as fortunate.
Wouldn’t it be a grand goal to set for ourselves to have every graduate from an accredited college or university leave campus with no financial debt to the institution? Imagine if instead of starting one's working life able to save and invest rather than pay back?
Berea is interesting because they have dared to think differently about how – and why – they provide an education. It is a pretty bare bones place but that is how they make their model work. Imagine if we could spread that imagination both to other educational institutions and also to other facets of our lives.
Imagine if we, as a society, put $2,000 into an interest-bearing retirement account for each child born in the U.S. The principal could be automatically repaid when the child turns 18 but the accrued interest could be the beginning of a retirement fund. Eighteen years of compounded interest can be significant.
Imagine if we thought about optimizing outcomes rather than spending so much time trying to ratify processes through ideological filters that worry about public vs. private.
Imagine.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
The Muffin Man
Perhaps it is because the economic news is just too depressing -- Fannie, Freddy, and Indy all melting down, inflation is up -- that I've been musing about muffins. Simple, sweet, escape.
A great muffin is wonderful. It's a small indulgence that induces less guilt than cookies or cake. It only costs a couple of bucks (well, getting closer to $3.00 every day) and it is beautifully self-contained. The tactile experience of bottom and top are generally just different enough to make a single muffin feel like a double treat. The top is a bit crunchier and a little less dense; the bottom moister and more compact.
I hold that blueberry is the muffin flavor by which one can best judge a muffin maker. Blueberry may not be your muffin of choice, but like vanilla ice cream it has the privilege of being quintessential. You may prefer corn, cappuccino, or cinnamon but we need a single variety to stand as the yardstick. Blueberry muffins make the grade because they require the baker to balance fruit and dough and there's no hiding behind icing or other gimmicks (and, blogger's prerogative, they are my muffin of choice!).
My favorite blueberry muffins feature whole berries and plenty of them. The muffin should be moist enough not to crumble at the touch. The fruit should be distributed throughout the muffin so that there is some in every bite -- no cheating by dropping berries on top like baubles on an Easter bonnet. New York coffee shops used to feature berries that had been minced and mixed throughout the batter. These weren't bad, especially when grilled, but they can't stand up to a whole berry creation.
Most important, the muffin should be no sweeter than the berries themselves so that the flavor of the fruit dominates. The batter is like a character actor: important, but charged with completing the scene without stealing it. The muffin needn't be large. Too many muffin makers have given in to the urge to supersize their treats and often that means spreading the expensive ingredients -- the fruit -- too thin. About the size of a baseball seems right to me (also making the muffin a potent weapon in a food fight:)).
Another common mistake is to try to compensate for less fruit with more sugar. If your teeth hurt when you bit into the muffin, you know that there has been too heavy a hand with the sweetners.
Too much sweetness is something I find common at places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts where muffins are often delivered flash frozen to the local establishment; sweetners must keep the muffins feeling fresh long after staleness should have crept in. The compromises made in the name of cost control and supply chain efficiency result in muffins that feel artificial in the mouth. I'm sure that there are other multi-syllabic enhancements that add to the plasticity of these products. That's it these are products, muffin-like products in the way that American cheese slices are "cheese food product," not cheese. The benefits accrue to my waistline as I can't bear to eat muffins at either establishment any more.
Au Bon Pain seems to be able to balance scale with authenticity in its blueberry muffins better than most of the other chains. Their muffins are somewhat inconsistent but I did have a wonderfully fruity one yesterday.
Best of all are homemade muffins or those from stand-alone shops that bake their own. I had a wonderful blueberry corn muffin at a little roadside bakeshop in Wellfleet last weekend that was everything that a muffin should be. As in so many things, it is artisan craft and pride that bring out the best in food. Time and care create great rewards in both the baking and the eating. Ah, I think I hear the oven calling me now...
A great muffin is wonderful. It's a small indulgence that induces less guilt than cookies or cake. It only costs a couple of bucks (well, getting closer to $3.00 every day) and it is beautifully self-contained. The tactile experience of bottom and top are generally just different enough to make a single muffin feel like a double treat. The top is a bit crunchier and a little less dense; the bottom moister and more compact.
I hold that blueberry is the muffin flavor by which one can best judge a muffin maker. Blueberry may not be your muffin of choice, but like vanilla ice cream it has the privilege of being quintessential. You may prefer corn, cappuccino, or cinnamon but we need a single variety to stand as the yardstick. Blueberry muffins make the grade because they require the baker to balance fruit and dough and there's no hiding behind icing or other gimmicks (and, blogger's prerogative, they are my muffin of choice!).
My favorite blueberry muffins feature whole berries and plenty of them. The muffin should be moist enough not to crumble at the touch. The fruit should be distributed throughout the muffin so that there is some in every bite -- no cheating by dropping berries on top like baubles on an Easter bonnet. New York coffee shops used to feature berries that had been minced and mixed throughout the batter. These weren't bad, especially when grilled, but they can't stand up to a whole berry creation.
Most important, the muffin should be no sweeter than the berries themselves so that the flavor of the fruit dominates. The batter is like a character actor: important, but charged with completing the scene without stealing it. The muffin needn't be large. Too many muffin makers have given in to the urge to supersize their treats and often that means spreading the expensive ingredients -- the fruit -- too thin. About the size of a baseball seems right to me (also making the muffin a potent weapon in a food fight:)).
Another common mistake is to try to compensate for less fruit with more sugar. If your teeth hurt when you bit into the muffin, you know that there has been too heavy a hand with the sweetners.
Too much sweetness is something I find common at places like Starbucks and Dunkin Donuts where muffins are often delivered flash frozen to the local establishment; sweetners must keep the muffins feeling fresh long after staleness should have crept in. The compromises made in the name of cost control and supply chain efficiency result in muffins that feel artificial in the mouth. I'm sure that there are other multi-syllabic enhancements that add to the plasticity of these products. That's it these are products, muffin-like products in the way that American cheese slices are "cheese food product," not cheese. The benefits accrue to my waistline as I can't bear to eat muffins at either establishment any more.
Au Bon Pain seems to be able to balance scale with authenticity in its blueberry muffins better than most of the other chains. Their muffins are somewhat inconsistent but I did have a wonderfully fruity one yesterday.
Best of all are homemade muffins or those from stand-alone shops that bake their own. I had a wonderful blueberry corn muffin at a little roadside bakeshop in Wellfleet last weekend that was everything that a muffin should be. As in so many things, it is artisan craft and pride that bring out the best in food. Time and care create great rewards in both the baking and the eating. Ah, I think I hear the oven calling me now...
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Sometimes It's Painfully Clear
We have a houseful on the Cape each Fourth of July. This time it was seven adults and five kids spread across three small cottages. The parade, the pancake breakfast, the fireworks were all delightful.
It was a rainy weekend here in the northeast and that means that movies are often substituted for the beach. There was debate across the ages about what to see (the crowd ranged from four to 73 years old). When we had narrowed it down to Wall-E, The Golden Boys, and some other I've now forgotten, we had to decide when to go.
That's when the differences in the generations became oh-so apparent. My mother-in-law asked if anyone had bought a paper, my wife went looking for a phone, and my nephew asked if I'd fire up the laptop.
There, unprompted, were three generations expressing their preferences for retreiving information. The reactions were instantaneous; the arc from printed page to wireless Internet connection hung like a rainbow above us.
The phone was the fastest, the laptop most information-rich, and the newspaper the most diverting (the story about Mabel's prize hydrangea bushes would otherwise never have been seen). As much as I prize efficiency and the ability to find reviews, actors' bios, and the director's previous credits, I have to say that I was sorry that no one had bought a paper. I missed the excuse to page through The Cape Codder marveling at the price of real estate, checking the tides, and reading about hydrangea bushes.
We did get to the movies -- The Golden Boys was the choice as it had been filmed on the Cape. It was awful. I guess that's one more point for the information-rich digital connection.
It was a rainy weekend here in the northeast and that means that movies are often substituted for the beach. There was debate across the ages about what to see (the crowd ranged from four to 73 years old). When we had narrowed it down to Wall-E, The Golden Boys, and some other I've now forgotten, we had to decide when to go.
That's when the differences in the generations became oh-so apparent. My mother-in-law asked if anyone had bought a paper, my wife went looking for a phone, and my nephew asked if I'd fire up the laptop.
There, unprompted, were three generations expressing their preferences for retreiving information. The reactions were instantaneous; the arc from printed page to wireless Internet connection hung like a rainbow above us.
The phone was the fastest, the laptop most information-rich, and the newspaper the most diverting (the story about Mabel's prize hydrangea bushes would otherwise never have been seen). As much as I prize efficiency and the ability to find reviews, actors' bios, and the director's previous credits, I have to say that I was sorry that no one had bought a paper. I missed the excuse to page through The Cape Codder marveling at the price of real estate, checking the tides, and reading about hydrangea bushes.
We did get to the movies -- The Golden Boys was the choice as it had been filmed on the Cape. It was awful. I guess that's one more point for the information-rich digital connection.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Growing Old, Living Fully
There's a fascinating story in today's Wall Street Journal (try the link but a subscription is required to see most stories) on green houses. No, not the kind where you grow exotic orchids, but rather small group homes for the elderly that proponents will someday replace nursing homes. Each home houses 10 - 12 residents in what looks and feels like a traditional home yet provides advanced medical care.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is putting some serious cash behind a plan developed by Dr. Bill Thomas to try to reach critical mass -- green houses operating in all 50 states -- in hopes that the movement will gain enough traction to be self-sustaining. He's just one proponent of this alternative to traditional nursing homes.
I think that this all sounds wonderful. One of my grandmothers spent her final three years in a nursing home and I can't recall ever being to a more depressing place. I hope to secure the right pill so that I can end things before I get to that state but might reconsider that chilling option if something like green houses are available.
One challenge is keeping this within the reach of average people. Current "assisted living" options are pretty darn expensive. I would hope that the group setting would encourage mutual care that might lower some costs. One study mentioned in the WSJ showed that the costs in a green house can be lower than in a traditional nursing home despite the scale advantages of the larger institution.
The capital costs of building the facilities is one thing that makes the green houses difficult financially. I wonder, however, if existing urban building stock could be adapted and repurposed for use as green houses. The density of urban areas lessens the need for cars, offers greater opportunities for social interaction, and may offer amenities such as movie theaters, drug stores, etc. I can even imagine several green house "condos" in relatively close proximity that could benefit from some centralized back office efficiencies.
The population is aging and we need to rethink how the elderly live their final years. There are enormous opporunities that can come from rethinking current approaches and being bold enough to try new ideas. It is heartening to hear about efforts such as this one. Please, build a green house in my backyard.
The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation is putting some serious cash behind a plan developed by Dr. Bill Thomas to try to reach critical mass -- green houses operating in all 50 states -- in hopes that the movement will gain enough traction to be self-sustaining. He's just one proponent of this alternative to traditional nursing homes.
I think that this all sounds wonderful. One of my grandmothers spent her final three years in a nursing home and I can't recall ever being to a more depressing place. I hope to secure the right pill so that I can end things before I get to that state but might reconsider that chilling option if something like green houses are available.
One challenge is keeping this within the reach of average people. Current "assisted living" options are pretty darn expensive. I would hope that the group setting would encourage mutual care that might lower some costs. One study mentioned in the WSJ showed that the costs in a green house can be lower than in a traditional nursing home despite the scale advantages of the larger institution.
The capital costs of building the facilities is one thing that makes the green houses difficult financially. I wonder, however, if existing urban building stock could be adapted and repurposed for use as green houses. The density of urban areas lessens the need for cars, offers greater opportunities for social interaction, and may offer amenities such as movie theaters, drug stores, etc. I can even imagine several green house "condos" in relatively close proximity that could benefit from some centralized back office efficiencies.
The population is aging and we need to rethink how the elderly live their final years. There are enormous opporunities that can come from rethinking current approaches and being bold enough to try new ideas. It is heartening to hear about efforts such as this one. Please, build a green house in my backyard.
Friday, June 20, 2008
An End to Airline Hell?
It’s not news that flying is becoming less fun by the day. Actually, it’s not news that flying was never as easy and convenient as the airlines wanted us to believe, but it sure beats the bus. Now, like millions of other regular business travelers, I have grown accustomed to arriving extra early so that I can spend thirty-seven minutes in line to be wanded, prodded, stroked, and searched by security guards (slip them a couple of bucks and, if you’re lucky, I hear they’ll use hot oil).
I know that there are solid reasons for enhanced security. What the early arrivals have given me, however, is the extra time to wonder why the rest of the process is so difficult. After all, you can’t swing a laptop in an airport without hitting a consultant. Can’t anyone reengineer this process?
For example, think about trying to get something to eat at the airport. You may think it’s easy given the plethora of stalls, stands, and snack shacks that line the endless walkways between the check-in counter and the departure gate, but I don’t say it’s hard to find something to eat, it’s just hard to get it. And, now that the airlines have stopped feeding us the food we complained about so much, airport eating has become a necessity.
Of course there is no food service directory, so you never know what you’ll find for food on your journey through the Tolkein-like maze of the terminal. My doctor has suggested that I limit myself to no more than two complete meals a day from Starbuck’s so I cruise for something at least minimally nutritious to carry onto the flight. After too many runway-side dining experiences I have learned that nutrition is not something that comes naturally to food served in airports so it takes some work.
I’ve also learned Murphy’s Law of Airport Cuisine. For departing flights, the food gets worse as you get closer to the gate. For arriving flights, the opposite is true. I think of myself as an average business traveler. I lug a briefcase that holds eight pounds of laptop and accessories, three and a half pounds of files and other work-related reading, the day’s newspaper, eyeglasses, sunglasses, a paper-clipped bundle of receipts from the last business trip, my keys and $7.83 in loose change that I’ve accumulated because I throw it my bag rather than play the “what else that’s metal do you have in your pocket” game with the security guard at the metal detector. All told, it’s a load that guarantees my chiropractor an income for life. I pull along a wheeled suitcase that holds everything else.
Maneuvering into a self-serve line at Junk Food Hut with an overstuffed briefcase and a suitcase is like driving with a U-Haul trailer on your car at rush hour. I don’t dare leave my things by a chair that I hope to occupy because a sweet, manufactured voice broadcast from loudspeakers every few minutes reminds me that unattended items are considered a safety threat and will be confiscated by the authorities for immediate destruction. I always thought that you shouldn’t leave luggage sitting unattended because someone might steal it, but I guess that thinking is just too 20th century. Now that anyone could be an international terrorist I have to worry about the police making off with my socks and undies.
Either way, my baggage and I must remain a unit as I pick up an orange plastic tray and attempt to fetch my meal. I grab an individual mini-pizza from a shiny metal warming stand while balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, and the tray. I stand in back of six other people and pity the women around me who manage to do all of this in heels. Finally, at the end of the line, I find someone ready to help me. “You wanna drink?” he asks in a voice bursting with indifference. “Large decaf. Milk, no sugar,” I reply, sagging under the weight of my load. The rushing throng of travelers buzzes like swarming locusts on a summer afternoon, but the hollow sound of an empty Styrofoam cup hitting the tray resonates above the din. “Coffee’s behind you.” He turns slightly to the person behind me. “You wanna drink?”
I fumble with my wallet to pay a ransom to his cohort at the register and slalom my way across the seating area to another counter marked “Beverages” in warm, cheery, modern letters. There, balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, the tray with pizza and the tottering empty cup, I must pour coffee, add milk, stir, and cover. Can’t forget napkins. And have to keep the receipt from blowing off the tray. Finally, I set down like a helicopter for a brief moment to rebalance my cargo. With a prayer to my dry cleaner, I jam the receipt into my pocket, stuff the napkins into my briefcase, and double-check the lid on the coffee.
OK, fifteen minutes to boarding. I’m by Gate A3 and, let’s see, my flight departs from Gate A147. We’re off. Feeling like a cruise ship waiter in a gale, I maneuver toward my far-off awaiting aircraft, bobbing and weaving with my precious payload. The briefcase fits atop the suitcase that I pull with my right hand. I have the pizza balanced on top of the coffee cup in my left. How, I wonder, will I ever pull out my boarding pass?
However, once on the moving sidewalk, I can ignore the colorful ads from consulting firms and think of the many simple things that could make this whole process – from check-in to in-flight meal – easier, more pleasant, and even more profitable. Here are six.
First, let’s talk about check in. At 6’3” with a 34” inseam, I am an exit row fanatic. That extra legroom is far closer to necessity than luxury, yet my chances of getting it are purely a matter of chance because the seats aren’t preassigned (the airline has to make sure that you are able bodied and thus assigns them at check in). Some charge extra exit row fees -- an upgrade where you are required to help in case of disaster that you have to pay for. Why not offer exit row certification? I would fork over $99.95 to take a three- or four-hour course so that I would actually know what opening an exit door is all about so long as it would qualify me to request a exit row seat when I book my ticket. The certification would come with a solemn pledge that I not show up on crutches and expect to sit there. The airline would get better-trained emergency assistance and tall people like me would get a more comfortable ride.
Second, hasn’t anyone at an airline ever been to a trade show? When I check in, why not give me everything in a little plastic pouch on a lanyard that can go around my neck? Even the picture ID, once checked, could slide into the front. The information on my checked luggage could be bar coded onto my receipt. The gate agent could then retrieve the plastic pouch at boarding and simply hand me back my boarding receipt and ID. No fumbling in pockets or searching madly in handbags for anyone, not to mention the environmental benefits of eliminating all of those paper folders.
Third, let’s move to security. How about large plastic bottles into which I can dump their change as I approach the metal detector? The proceeds could go to support the victims of terrorism worldwide. If most people are like me, they’d be happy to toss in their 79 cents and the sum could easily result in millions of dollars for people in need. This is in place at Heathrow but I haven't seen it elsewhere. And could we please all acknowledge that the chances of someone hijacking an airplane with a nail file or corkscrew are all but nil? A cup of hot coffee is a greater threat (especially the coffee they serve onboard).
OK, now on to my beloved food. Question to the airlines: why not just let me preorder some food? I know that you aren’t making any money. You know I have to eat. So, why not offer a simple meal for a $10 surcharge -- but let me guarantee that there will be what I want waiting? They've figured out the selling part but you haven't lived until you get on a long flight and find out that they run out of everything two rows in front of you. They could serve it onboard like the old days or just hand me a box meal at the gate. If there’s an “M” on my boarding pass, I paid for a meal and I get one. Everybody’s happy.
If that’s too complicated, let’s move onto Plan B. We live in take-out nation. If the airlines won’t deliver the food, why can’t someone else? Take-out kiosks could let me place an order for food that could be delivered to me at the gate. I just punch in my name and flight to ensure that there’s enough time to deliver and I can sit back and wait, with my luggage safely beside me, for my junk food of choice.
Finally, a plea to the policy makers of corporate America: shouldn’t the right to fly business or first class be determined by total miles flown for the company rather than rank in the organization? The people who regularly show up at five in the morning for a seven o’clock flight away from their families – whether salespeople, mid-level managers, or top executives -- are most deserving of the shorter lines, greater leg room, and better food that comes with upgraded seating. And, best of all, the Senior Vice President who only flies two or three times a year needs to experience first-hand what the rest of us go through all of the time.
I know that there are solid reasons for enhanced security. What the early arrivals have given me, however, is the extra time to wonder why the rest of the process is so difficult. After all, you can’t swing a laptop in an airport without hitting a consultant. Can’t anyone reengineer this process?
For example, think about trying to get something to eat at the airport. You may think it’s easy given the plethora of stalls, stands, and snack shacks that line the endless walkways between the check-in counter and the departure gate, but I don’t say it’s hard to find something to eat, it’s just hard to get it. And, now that the airlines have stopped feeding us the food we complained about so much, airport eating has become a necessity.
Of course there is no food service directory, so you never know what you’ll find for food on your journey through the Tolkein-like maze of the terminal. My doctor has suggested that I limit myself to no more than two complete meals a day from Starbuck’s so I cruise for something at least minimally nutritious to carry onto the flight. After too many runway-side dining experiences I have learned that nutrition is not something that comes naturally to food served in airports so it takes some work.
I’ve also learned Murphy’s Law of Airport Cuisine. For departing flights, the food gets worse as you get closer to the gate. For arriving flights, the opposite is true. I think of myself as an average business traveler. I lug a briefcase that holds eight pounds of laptop and accessories, three and a half pounds of files and other work-related reading, the day’s newspaper, eyeglasses, sunglasses, a paper-clipped bundle of receipts from the last business trip, my keys and $7.83 in loose change that I’ve accumulated because I throw it my bag rather than play the “what else that’s metal do you have in your pocket” game with the security guard at the metal detector. All told, it’s a load that guarantees my chiropractor an income for life. I pull along a wheeled suitcase that holds everything else.
Maneuvering into a self-serve line at Junk Food Hut with an overstuffed briefcase and a suitcase is like driving with a U-Haul trailer on your car at rush hour. I don’t dare leave my things by a chair that I hope to occupy because a sweet, manufactured voice broadcast from loudspeakers every few minutes reminds me that unattended items are considered a safety threat and will be confiscated by the authorities for immediate destruction. I always thought that you shouldn’t leave luggage sitting unattended because someone might steal it, but I guess that thinking is just too 20th century. Now that anyone could be an international terrorist I have to worry about the police making off with my socks and undies.
Either way, my baggage and I must remain a unit as I pick up an orange plastic tray and attempt to fetch my meal. I grab an individual mini-pizza from a shiny metal warming stand while balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, and the tray. I stand in back of six other people and pity the women around me who manage to do all of this in heels. Finally, at the end of the line, I find someone ready to help me. “You wanna drink?” he asks in a voice bursting with indifference. “Large decaf. Milk, no sugar,” I reply, sagging under the weight of my load. The rushing throng of travelers buzzes like swarming locusts on a summer afternoon, but the hollow sound of an empty Styrofoam cup hitting the tray resonates above the din. “Coffee’s behind you.” He turns slightly to the person behind me. “You wanna drink?”
I fumble with my wallet to pay a ransom to his cohort at the register and slalom my way across the seating area to another counter marked “Beverages” in warm, cheery, modern letters. There, balancing the briefcase, the suitcase, the tray with pizza and the tottering empty cup, I must pour coffee, add milk, stir, and cover. Can’t forget napkins. And have to keep the receipt from blowing off the tray. Finally, I set down like a helicopter for a brief moment to rebalance my cargo. With a prayer to my dry cleaner, I jam the receipt into my pocket, stuff the napkins into my briefcase, and double-check the lid on the coffee.
OK, fifteen minutes to boarding. I’m by Gate A3 and, let’s see, my flight departs from Gate A147. We’re off. Feeling like a cruise ship waiter in a gale, I maneuver toward my far-off awaiting aircraft, bobbing and weaving with my precious payload. The briefcase fits atop the suitcase that I pull with my right hand. I have the pizza balanced on top of the coffee cup in my left. How, I wonder, will I ever pull out my boarding pass?
However, once on the moving sidewalk, I can ignore the colorful ads from consulting firms and think of the many simple things that could make this whole process – from check-in to in-flight meal – easier, more pleasant, and even more profitable. Here are six.
First, let’s talk about check in. At 6’3” with a 34” inseam, I am an exit row fanatic. That extra legroom is far closer to necessity than luxury, yet my chances of getting it are purely a matter of chance because the seats aren’t preassigned (the airline has to make sure that you are able bodied and thus assigns them at check in). Some charge extra exit row fees -- an upgrade where you are required to help in case of disaster that you have to pay for. Why not offer exit row certification? I would fork over $99.95 to take a three- or four-hour course so that I would actually know what opening an exit door is all about so long as it would qualify me to request a exit row seat when I book my ticket. The certification would come with a solemn pledge that I not show up on crutches and expect to sit there. The airline would get better-trained emergency assistance and tall people like me would get a more comfortable ride.
Second, hasn’t anyone at an airline ever been to a trade show? When I check in, why not give me everything in a little plastic pouch on a lanyard that can go around my neck? Even the picture ID, once checked, could slide into the front. The information on my checked luggage could be bar coded onto my receipt. The gate agent could then retrieve the plastic pouch at boarding and simply hand me back my boarding receipt and ID. No fumbling in pockets or searching madly in handbags for anyone, not to mention the environmental benefits of eliminating all of those paper folders.
Third, let’s move to security. How about large plastic bottles into which I can dump their change as I approach the metal detector? The proceeds could go to support the victims of terrorism worldwide. If most people are like me, they’d be happy to toss in their 79 cents and the sum could easily result in millions of dollars for people in need. This is in place at Heathrow but I haven't seen it elsewhere. And could we please all acknowledge that the chances of someone hijacking an airplane with a nail file or corkscrew are all but nil? A cup of hot coffee is a greater threat (especially the coffee they serve onboard).
OK, now on to my beloved food. Question to the airlines: why not just let me preorder some food? I know that you aren’t making any money. You know I have to eat. So, why not offer a simple meal for a $10 surcharge -- but let me guarantee that there will be what I want waiting? They've figured out the selling part but you haven't lived until you get on a long flight and find out that they run out of everything two rows in front of you. They could serve it onboard like the old days or just hand me a box meal at the gate. If there’s an “M” on my boarding pass, I paid for a meal and I get one. Everybody’s happy.
If that’s too complicated, let’s move onto Plan B. We live in take-out nation. If the airlines won’t deliver the food, why can’t someone else? Take-out kiosks could let me place an order for food that could be delivered to me at the gate. I just punch in my name and flight to ensure that there’s enough time to deliver and I can sit back and wait, with my luggage safely beside me, for my junk food of choice.
Finally, a plea to the policy makers of corporate America: shouldn’t the right to fly business or first class be determined by total miles flown for the company rather than rank in the organization? The people who regularly show up at five in the morning for a seven o’clock flight away from their families – whether salespeople, mid-level managers, or top executives -- are most deserving of the shorter lines, greater leg room, and better food that comes with upgraded seating. And, best of all, the Senior Vice President who only flies two or three times a year needs to experience first-hand what the rest of us go through all of the time.
Monday, June 16, 2008
Remembering Russert
I, like most people, was shocked to hear that Tim Russert died last Friday. He was young and, more important, a ubiquitous authority during this momentous presidential campaign. Tim Russert was someone you could count on to help you make sense out of whatever was unfolding.
There has been enough said about his many great qualities as journalist, mentor, colleague, friend, and political insider. All of it is richly deserved, I’m sure. I never met Russert though we did once share a stairway at Rockefeller Center. He was yammering on his cell phone. I was trying hard to pretend that I wasn’t impressed that I was standing next to him as I ascended.
What I will mourn is the loss of another knowledgeable, authoritative voice in our civic discourse. Russert was consistently lauded for fairness, toughness, and a drive to make complex issues “make sense to the folks in Buffalo.” He didn’t make his mark through partisan tirades or gotcha questioning. His strategy was consistent and straight forward: ask pertinent, direct questions and push until he got answers. To be able to do that, he prepared rigorously for each show.
There aren’t many Russerts in the wings. Nightline has lost it punch without Ted Koppel; Meet the Press will have to work hard not to suffer the same fate. When CBS tried to revamp their evening news, they turned to Katie Couric and look what a laugher that has turned out to be. To be fair, CBS tried to make her more of an entertainer than a hard-nosed journalist so let’s not blame it all on Katie. But you see where the great minds of television news production want to take us.
Russert always seemed committed to raising the level of discussion about critical issues, not using them as a stepstool for his own self-aggrandizement. A Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman can’t simply step in and do the same thing. Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs couldn’t carry Russert’s luggage.
We’ll miss Tim Russert in more ways that we know. It will be especially evident as we head into the general election. This also provides an opportunities for others to step up and show us what they’ve got. There’s no one who can measure up to Russert today but let’s hope that someone can grow to fill those shoes in the months ahead.
There has been enough said about his many great qualities as journalist, mentor, colleague, friend, and political insider. All of it is richly deserved, I’m sure. I never met Russert though we did once share a stairway at Rockefeller Center. He was yammering on his cell phone. I was trying hard to pretend that I wasn’t impressed that I was standing next to him as I ascended.
What I will mourn is the loss of another knowledgeable, authoritative voice in our civic discourse. Russert was consistently lauded for fairness, toughness, and a drive to make complex issues “make sense to the folks in Buffalo.” He didn’t make his mark through partisan tirades or gotcha questioning. His strategy was consistent and straight forward: ask pertinent, direct questions and push until he got answers. To be able to do that, he prepared rigorously for each show.
There aren’t many Russerts in the wings. Nightline has lost it punch without Ted Koppel; Meet the Press will have to work hard not to suffer the same fate. When CBS tried to revamp their evening news, they turned to Katie Couric and look what a laugher that has turned out to be. To be fair, CBS tried to make her more of an entertainer than a hard-nosed journalist so let’s not blame it all on Katie. But you see where the great minds of television news production want to take us.
Russert always seemed committed to raising the level of discussion about critical issues, not using them as a stepstool for his own self-aggrandizement. A Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman can’t simply step in and do the same thing. Wolf Blitzer or Lou Dobbs couldn’t carry Russert’s luggage.
We’ll miss Tim Russert in more ways that we know. It will be especially evident as we head into the general election. This also provides an opportunities for others to step up and show us what they’ve got. There’s no one who can measure up to Russert today but let’s hope that someone can grow to fill those shoes in the months ahead.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Rethinking the American Diet
Blogging live from lunch at South Water Kitchen in Chicago.The photo on the front page of today's New York Times is astounding: hundreds of thousands of people in South Korea protesting U.S. beef imports. I guess that U.S. beef is not what's for dinner in Seoul and fear of mad cow disease (and a desire to protect the local beef producers) is why. The wide shot of the crowd doesn't pop up on the Times' Web site but this AP shot from Yahoo will give you the meaty flavor of the gathering.
I've been thinking a lot about beef ever since I read a piece in the Times a few months back about its environmental impact. Everyone eliminating 20% of one's beef intake, as I recall, was the equivalent of switching from a Camry to a Prius (if the Times' search engine wasn't so feeble I'd link you to the article). I've been trying to do that both for the health and environmental benefits (Hint: making breakfast meatless is an easy start; one or two dinners a week isn't that hard either. Harder but effective is to restrict oneself to small farm, grass fed beef -- it's just that much harder to find, especially in restaurants).
I tried being a pescitarian for a few weeks last year but, well, it only lasted a few weeks. I'm an omnivore and there isn't anything I can do about that. No apologies from me for eating things with faces. I could never do the no carb thing; the smell alone of fresh baked bread makes me weak in the knees. Vegetarianism? That is great until the ecoli shows up in the spinach or salmonella gets tomatoes whisked from the shelves faster than Obama signs at a McCain rally.
Mark Bittman's excellent piece in today's Dining In section (hey, I was on an airplane and the Times was all I had to read today) gives great ideas for putting meat in its place. The one that struck me most was conceptual: think of meat as a treasure, a jewel, rather than as the center of the meal. This is how meat is thought of in much of the world and this subtle mental shift makes portion control a lot more palatable. Think, for example, of answering the "what's for dinner" question with "A great caprese salad with fresh mozzerella a little sliced tenderloin" instead of "steak and salad." The ingredients don't have to change in order to alter expectations.
Here at the South Water Kitchen, the burger is advertised as a half-pounder. Who needs a half pound of beef for lunch? I remember when the Quarter Pounder was introduced and it was played up as an enormous amount of meat. Increasingly, restaurant burgers are 8, 10, or more ounces of beef. The USDA reports that per capita meat consumption is up 57 lbs per year (2000 vs. 1950).
Americans have steadily increased their caloric consumption between 1970 and 2000 (22% for women; 7% for men as of 2000 according to the National Center for Health Statistics; USDA suggests that it has grown by 24% overall). Soft drink consumption is up five-fold over the past 50 years. And we wonder why so many of those around us are obese.
With more people working more hours, dependence on convenient foods (ready to eat, take out, restaurants, etc.) will continue to grow. This means a greater dependence on a corporate food supply -- you don't get a lot of heat-and-serve options at your local farmers' market. While there are healthy options, too much of what we grab to go is laden with salt, high fructose corn syrup, factory farm bred meat and poultry, and other ingredients that are far from the best you can put in your body.
It's time to rethink the American diet. We need to make the personal and policy efforts necessary to increase local food production, small and medium-sized farms, and fresh, unprocessed foods. We need to acknowledge that most of us should be eating less and virtually all of us should be eating differently.
Then again, we may not have a choiceTom Pawlick is eloquent on the larger issues that may cause the current food system to collapse in The End of Food.
Now I'm off to produce an event at (sigh) Morton's Steak House. See how hard it is to eat small?
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Evolution, Creation, Solution?
Overshadowed by yesterday's flurry of stories about Obama crossing the delegate threshhold to claim the Democratic nomination was a piece about the Texas School Board in the New York Times. Supporters of intelligent design/creationism are once again taking a run at how evolution is taught in schools.
I spent a couple of years attending an evangelical church in my teen years. I was active in youth groups and new people from several other like-minded congregations. I learned that true believers hold tight to the idea that there is one way, that all other options are the work of Satan, and that one's calling in life as a Christian is to spread the Word. In short, as moderate as opponents of teaching evolution try to sound, they are serious and they aren't going away.
Rather than delve into the argument over whether alternatives to evolutionary theory should be taught in science classes, I'd like to propose an alternative: teach religion in schools.
Note that I said "teach," not "preach." Understanding religion is critical to understanding both current affairs and history and I believe that there should be a required high school course that educates students about the major religions (without dogma). Everyone should know the the basic beliefs and history of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. It should be an active class with many guest lecturers, field trips, and research projects.
This class would be the place to present the Christian view of creation (along with lots of other concepts from the various religions). It would provide a respectful evironment for the airing and exploration of all sorts of faith-based ideas. And it would let us reserve science class for scientific theories rather than putting students in the middle of the age-old battle between science and religion (although what a great history class that topic would make!).
"Opponents of teaching evolution, in a natural selection of sorts, have
gradually shed those strategies that have not survived the courts. Over the last
decade, creationism has given rise to “creation science,” which became
“intelligent design,” which in 2005 was banned from the public school curriculum
in Pennsylvania by a federal judge.
Now a battle looms in Texas
over science textbooks that teach evolution, and the wrestle for control seizes
on three words. None of them are “creationism” or “intelligent design” or even
“creator.”
The words are 'strengths and weaknesses," the Times reported.
I spent a couple of years attending an evangelical church in my teen years. I was active in youth groups and new people from several other like-minded congregations. I learned that true believers hold tight to the idea that there is one way, that all other options are the work of Satan, and that one's calling in life as a Christian is to spread the Word. In short, as moderate as opponents of teaching evolution try to sound, they are serious and they aren't going away.
Rather than delve into the argument over whether alternatives to evolutionary theory should be taught in science classes, I'd like to propose an alternative: teach religion in schools.
Note that I said "teach," not "preach." Understanding religion is critical to understanding both current affairs and history and I believe that there should be a required high school course that educates students about the major religions (without dogma). Everyone should know the the basic beliefs and history of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus. It should be an active class with many guest lecturers, field trips, and research projects.
This class would be the place to present the Christian view of creation (along with lots of other concepts from the various religions). It would provide a respectful evironment for the airing and exploration of all sorts of faith-based ideas. And it would let us reserve science class for scientific theories rather than putting students in the middle of the age-old battle between science and religion (although what a great history class that topic would make!).
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Kaffiyeh Kerfuffel (or Rachel Ray Suicide Bomber)
I first learned of the dust up over the scarf that Rachel Ray wore in a Dunkin' Donuts online ad yesterday morning on LinkedIn, the business networking site, of all places. In the "Answers" section there was a question from a branding professional asking for opinions on DD's decision to pull the ad after protests from conservative commentators. A few minutes later the anchor at Boston's WCVB-TV announced that the story about Rachel's scarf was among the most popular on its web site.
This isn't really about a silly ol' scarf; what has been classified until now is a CIA discovery that virtually all terrorists can prepare their meals in 30 minutes or less -- and how could that be possible without some covert coaching from the diva of rapid cuisine?!
DD obviously blew this one. In response to the taunts from a few shrill voices, the chain overreacted and now faces charges of racism, corporate cowardice, and serving weak iced coffee. The ad has probably been seen by more people than ever would have seen it otherwise and most of the comments I've seen online are strong protests against the donut maker. One organization has called for a worldwide boycott.
Blogs are buzzing with comments on this incident: Jake Summers, The Jawa Report, Ugly Doggy, The Conglomerate, and Lalablahblah are just a few. It's been picked up on Yahoo, Newsweek.com and other outlets. This has become a textbook example of how not to respond to hot headed criticism.
If you are going to play in the online world, you have to learn how to deal with situations like this. You are in the land of conversation, not monologue and people are going to comment positively and negatively on what you are doing. You have to know when and whether to engage. In this case, either silence or a simple clarification that the scarf wasn't a kaffiyeh but that kaffiyeh's are worn by millions of non-terrorists (some DD customers, no doubt) --without pulling the ad --would have been much more appropriate and productive for the brand. Personally, I would have sent the offending paisley scarf to Michelle Malkin -- the commentator who got much of this fired up -- with a suggestion that she wrap it around her own neck really tight.
Malkin and her fellow travelers in Arab bashing and fear mongering, nattering nabobs of negativism, to borrow a phrase from one of their conservative forebearers, must be thriled at all of the attention this story has received.
But Rachel Ray a terrorist sympathizer? Get real. She only terrorizes with her ubiquitousness and indeftatigable drive to be perky at all times. Check the lists of the top 10,000 people most likely to be abetting terrorists and you won't find her Ray-ship there except those kept by the truly delusional and paranoid.
The upside that I see is all the commentary from those of us who are appalled at all of this and who decry the racism in the equating a commonly worn garment with terrorism. Shame on Malkin. Shame on Dunkin' Donuts. I'm going to go buy a kaffiyeh and wear it out to buy coffee!
Thursday, May 22, 2008
Gas prices and the Arctic
I was listening to a report on NPR this morning about the Congressional hearings at which the heads of the big oil companies were called to testify. The senators gassed on about the impact of the high cost of oil on American families -- the impact on families is true enough but they should have thought of that before starting a war in the Middle East that both consumes a lot of oil and raises uncertainty in the region -- and the first (reported) response from an oil executive -- if we'd only let them drill more places in the U.S. all of this wouldn't be happening.
It made me think -- is part of the rising price gas (and the tolerance of it by the White House and others in Washington) a plan to make the pain at the pump intense enough that Americans drop their opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive spots?
The people I know in the oil business realize that they are in the energy business, that fossil fuels are only part of the answer, and that U.S. reserves are too tiny to provide a long-term solution. However, I only know people at one big energy company well and they've been out front in talking about strategic energy interdependence and the need for alternatives to fossil fuels. Needless to say this wasn't the company quoted in the story.
Many, many in the oil business drool at the thought of drilling in the Artic and off our coasts. I don't want to claim a vast oil-wing conspiracy, but I wouldn't put it past these companies to try to take advantage of any opportunity to finally get what they have lusted after for years.
It made me think -- is part of the rising price gas (and the tolerance of it by the White House and others in Washington) a plan to make the pain at the pump intense enough that Americans drop their opposition to drilling in the Artic National Wildlife Refuge and other environmentally sensitive spots?
The people I know in the oil business realize that they are in the energy business, that fossil fuels are only part of the answer, and that U.S. reserves are too tiny to provide a long-term solution. However, I only know people at one big energy company well and they've been out front in talking about strategic energy interdependence and the need for alternatives to fossil fuels. Needless to say this wasn't the company quoted in the story.
Many, many in the oil business drool at the thought of drilling in the Artic and off our coasts. I don't want to claim a vast oil-wing conspiracy, but I wouldn't put it past these companies to try to take advantage of any opportunity to finally get what they have lusted after for years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
