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.

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.

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 made 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

“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.