Intellectual Restlessness

Random Observations from Dad

2010-02-24T18:45:00.006-05:00

1. Cole bites his nails but Reed doesn't. I bite my nails. It is a terrible habit. I have tried to stop for so many years - without any success. I do it subconsciously but I try not to do it around my kids. Oddly, Cole does and Reed doesn't. Therefore I concluded that biting nails may not be voluntary or environmentally induced, rather it may be the result of biology or genes. Some quick reserach on the internet seems to confirm this theory. So maybe my inability to stop is beyond my control.

2. Kids eat their favorites first and don't drink while eating. When eating a plate of food, Cole and Reed both consume the favorite item first. But even more curiously they don't tend to drink while eating. This behavior again could be "natural" since they always see Tanya and I eating and drinking during a meal. A quick search on the internet suggests that the stomach functions better when the liquid content of our stomachs are reduced. Maybe Tanya and I should change our eating habits and learn from them.

3. The english language is terrible to teach. The rules of the english language are so difficult to explain because of the inconsistency. It it heartbreaking when your son is visibly upset when you try to explain that carrot doesn't begin with a "K". Or try sounding out the word "eight". I don't know how we learned this language.

Change You Can Believe In

2009-02-16T20:48:00.002-05:00

I was recently alerted to an article that highlighted a recent challenge to the federal 8(a) program. As you know the 8(a) program seeks to help small disadvantaged businesses compete in the American economy and access the federal procurement market.

Quoting from the article,

“A federal appeals court has thrown out a law establishing a 5 percent goal for awarding defense contracts to small businesses owned by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals. The decision has the potential to invalidate the small disadvantaged and 8(a) contracting programs, which help socially and economically disadvantaged firms win billions of dollars in federal contracts every year.”

Some comments to the article have struck the familiar chord of discontent. “I just don't see how anyone cannot see how this is discrimination.” Or “I have always argued the fact that to be truly equal we must use other criteria for evaluating people (in this case companies); vice by the color of their skin. All small businesses should be considered on their financial status only in considering their disadvantaged status.”

Sure these comments lack a full understanding of the 8(a) program, but despite the underlying ignorance the response is familiar and galvanizing to an influential segment of the population. However, I always thought the cries of “reverse racism” and/or “reverse discrimination” were the weakest arguments against these programs. The true measure of the policies to support women and underrepresented minorities would be the effectiveness with respect to closing the educational, income, and opportunity gaps.

On some levels we have seen improvements. On many we have not. A currently popular argument (see TARP 1) is that things would have been worse if these programs had not existed. It looks like we will be able to test that hypothesis.

Whatever You Say Boss

2009-02-11T09:11:00.005-05:00

Our new President gave his first press conference two nights ago. He addressed the nation in the midst of our worst financial crisis since the great depression. He was direct, convincing, passionate and thoughtful. The tenor of the press conference was completely different than his predecessor. Even the constitution of the press corps reflected a change in the Washington political dynamic. Very cool.

But for all the differences, I got the eerie feeling of déjà vu. "We must act quickly". "This won’t be perfect". "We have to do something". The certainty of the conviction for a such a monumental decision ($850 billion is about $200 billion more than the cost of the entire Iraq War thus far) is reminiscent of the last administration, whose confidence and bravado in the face of questionable decision making was disheartening.

The stimulus package is confusing. I used this analogy in a conversation with a colleague.

Imagine this conversation between a father and his college aged son

Son: I am strapped for cash again. I am in a bind and need help immediately.
Father: Why
Son: Books are expensive for all the lab classes I am taking
Father: Books are a known college scam. How much are the books?
Son: Books will be $300.
Father: I can send you a check for …
Son: (interrupting) Make it out for $4,200.
Father: Huh
Son: Well, books are $300. But I need pens and pencils and notebooks and stuff, $50. I need to put a down payment on my study abroad program in the summer, $4,200. I will need money for student dues and lab fees, $50.
Father: And I have to decide now.
Son: Give me the money now or all is lost.
Father: Well everything you outlined is more than $4,200.
Son: Yeah, well I am only going to buy $200 worth of books. And to be honest the total cost of the summer program will be $20,000.

The conversation seems crazy but this is our stimulus package. We are providing less than half of the money needed for “shovel ready” projects. We are being forced to decide now on expenditures that won’t happen for months. We are only providing a small down payment on the necessary long term projects. My example couldn’t account for other challenges such as uncertainty that we are spending enough in the stimulus plan or too much. Plus, there is legitimate dissension that this is the right approach. Tax credit to new home buyers, what about existing home owners? etc. etc.

But in the end I like our President. Plus putting a down payment on green jobs and new schools and trying to create construction jobs and extending entitlement programs are all good things. Let's hope it works. So despite my misgivings, I trust his values and integrity and I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. He deserves this chance.

Inaguration - Our Last Celebration?

2009-01-24T00:13:00.003-05:00

As I think about the historical significance of the inauguration of Barack Obama, I am struck by the number of historic firsts achieved by African Americans during my lifetime.

• Secretary of State: Colin Powell, 2001.
• Female Senator: Carol Mosely Braun, 1992.
• Female Astronaut: Mae Jemison, 1992.
• Winning Superbowl Head Coach: Tony Dungy, 2007
• Winning NCAA Basketball Championship Head Coach: John Thompson, 1984
• Ivy League President: Ruth Simmons, 2001.
• Oscar / Best Actress: Halle Berry, 2001.
• Golf Masters Champion: Tiger Woods, 1997
• Billionaire: Robert Johnson, 2001.
• Miss America: Vanessa Williams, 1984

Each one of these achievements sparked a sense of pride and reaffirmed the American dream that one can achieve the highest levels of success with determination, talent, and perseverance. These “firsts” also helped to dispel that skin color was an insurmountable deterrent. My mom told me I could do anything – and I believed. Mostly.

But as we celebrate these individual accomplishments I am also struck by the absence of societal gains. By all measures the income gap between African Americans and the majority population has increased. So has the educational gap, incarceration rates, life expectancy, and wage. Continuing with this list would just be depressing.

Why haven’t we been able to capitalize on Robert Johnson’s financial acumen to create more wealth in black communities? Why haven’t we been able to build upon Ruth Simmon’s talents in education to improve the reading and math skills of the African American youth? Why haven’t we been able to get more African American head coaches in College Football despite the obvious success and talents of the few African Americans that have been given the opportunity to coach at the professional and Division I level?

Why? Because we no longer focus on achieving societal goals - integration, equal access, voting rights – we are now defined by celebrating individual accomplishments.

Barack Obama’s Presidency marks the most significant individual African American achievement in our nation’s history. What will we celebrate next? All other individual accomplishments for African American will undoubtedly pale in comparison. I hope I witness something else, something noteworthy, something societal, to celebrate in our lifetime.

Why Lebron Should Come to NY

2008-11-26T20:24:00.005-05:00

Look, the NBA League Offices aren't colluding to put Lebron James in NY. Nor does it need to. The NBA wants Lebron deep into the playoffs. Whether that is with the Cavs, or the Knicks, or Boston, or Detroit it doesn't matter. Wouldn't the NBA be salivating at a Cavs vs. Lakers Final - Lebron vs. Kobe? The worst thing for Lebron and the NBA is if Lebron goes to a team with no title hopes. But that won't happen ... neither side would let it happen. So why should Lebron come to NY?

Reason 1. Global ICON. Lebron wants to be a global icon. He has already played league sanctioned exhibition games overseas. He has been and will be a fixture on U.S. international teams. His sponsorship deals are noteworthy for their scope and breadth. He has done all of this from Cleveland. But in NYC - King James presumably can invest his wealth and brand into other business ventures. Go international. Easier access to Europe. Easier access for others to him.

Get Real. Who are we kidding? He is not going to NY to cut investment banking deals or start a mutual fund. The most logical business extension for an athlete is entertainment. Movies, TV, Radio, Music, etc. are all facilitated from either LA or NY. You don't hear artists leaving their families and trying to make a name for themselves on Ontario Street in Cleveland. Just guessing but doesn't KJ (King James) clothing sound about right. Or how about King James Records. Or KJ Production Studio. Whatever. If he wants to make money and influence others through culture and through entertainment he has to go to LA or NY. LA isn't a viable option so NY here we come.

Reason 2. Winning and Winning with Style. Cleveland is one of the top 5 teams in the league with a legitimate chance at the title. But Mo Williams and Delonte West aren't drawing comparisons to the Showtime Lakers. They grind out victories with defense and a over reliance on King James' greatness. That is a winning formula - albeit boring and physically taxing on him.

If he comes to NY he could be paired with Dwayne Wade. Steve Nash, Tracy McGrady, and/or Marcus Camby might sign mid-level exemptions just to tag along for a title. They would be playing a fun, less stressful, up-tempo, score as many points as you want style with NY coach D'Antoni. He could redefine how to win in the NBA. Offense wins championships - not Defense. He could win on new terms. He could help change the perception of the league and make basketball more exciting for all fans. Either the coach, style, or market attractiveness would not work for any other team in the league. NY gives him his only shot at winning with this new style for a coach he likes for teammates he truly respects.

See you in NY in 2010 Lebron!

10 Questions Post Election

2008-11-09T22:56:00.010-05:00

1. Are we expecting President Elect Obama to appoint African-American's in prominent positions in the cabinet? (see George W. Bush). Should we expect it?

2. Is the election of Barack Obama help or hurt the cause for affirmative action? Now, try to argue the other side

3. Would "we" have celebrated like this if President Elect Obama were Republican?

4. Did President Elect Obama really bring the country together with 53% of the vote?

5. Would it have mattered if McCain picked a more 'reasonable' running mate? (say Lieberman, Guiliani, or Romney)

6. Would we have 'celebrated' like this if Hillary were elected President?

7. Should we have been so surprised that an African American was elected president considering the relative rise of African American in other walks of life (industry, finance, sports/entertainment, etc.)?

8. Is this the last 'symbol' of advancement needed for African Americans in the U.S.?

9. If President Elect Obama presides over our exit from Iraq and the "turnaround" from our financial crisis will he be viewed in the same light as Roosevelt?

10. How much money will President Elect Obama make off of his next book?

Report Card Continued - On the Issues

2008-10-20T00:11:00.005-04:00

In my last post, I evaluated the relative readiness or experience of the candidates for president. But experience is but 1 of 3 factors in my mind. The other two are Position on the Issues and Personal Characteristics. Here we will delve into who has the best ideas on the issues that matter.

So, what are the issues that matter to the electorate? Recent polls from Newsweek, CBS, and Fox conclude that the Economy, "War on Terror", and Healthcare are weighing most on the minds of people ... with the Economy dominating the discussion.

1. Economy.
In doing my research for this analysis ... I became overwhelmed. There is so much to consider with respect to goverment spending, corporate taxes, individual taxes, response to the global recesssion, etc. Yet, so much of what the candidates say are subject to change based on the current financial conditions. In the end, I found them to be relatively even with a slight edge to ...

Interesting Fact. Currently the top 5% of people pay 20% of their income to taxes, whereas the bottom 50% pay only 3% of their income to taxes. And the top 5% have been paying a greater portion of the overall taxes in the country. For example, in 1980 the top 5% of Americans accounted for 36% of tax revenue. In 2006, the top 5% of Americans accounted for 60% of tax revenue. On the flip side, the top 5% of Americans were making about 20% of all income in 1980 and they are now making 36%. So the rich are getting richer ... but they are also paying a lot more. (Top 5% is roughly an Adjusted Gross Income of $150K)

Obama: B. I thought some of his corporate tax cuts (research credit, tax cuts for creating jobs, etc.) and pay as you go philosophy are strong. But he could do more to help corporations and his unclear stance on free trade is not the best. Both he and McCain have missed the mark on the bailout or rescue plan. Finally, he really wants to help the poor and middle class with additional tax breaks - even on top of the current bailout plan. I am not convinced it is necessary or that it will work but I understand that these cuts are probably overdue.

McCain: B-. His corporate tax cuts are more aggressive and therefore more favorable and I think he understands that the excessive spending in DC requires a hatchet job. However, he losses big points on his economic response to the financial crisis. He didn't have the political courage to promote or stick with his idea to help homeowners.

Btw ... personal view is that corporate tax cuts creates jobs, individual income tax cuts promotes consumption. Both are good and needed for our economy, but I think corporate tax cuts are more needed.

2. War on Terror.
Who knows what that means, I will assume War in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Obama: B. His time line for withdrawal was always couched by "conditions on the ground", so it is hard to disagree with his approach. Hunting down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan is a mistake that will reach Iraq proportions. War in Afghanistan will cost billions, cost many American lives, and require reconstruction in order to ensure long term stability ... sound familiar

McCain. B. His time line for withdrawl was linked to "conditions on the ground", so it is hard to disagree with his approach. Hunting down Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan using a "surge" strategy is a mistake that will reach Iraq proportions. (see above)

3. Healthcare.
First, let's recognize that neither has a good chance of planning any credible reforms to Healthcare due to our current economic crisis. That being said ...

Obama: B+. Generally more economists and more doctors support his plan. His plan will probably cover more people, especially people with preconditions. The downside is that we are still left with an employer based system and he doesn't do enough to lower the overall costs in the system.

McCain: D. If he were as articulate as Obama, he would state that employer based health care will never get us to universal health care. He would argue that running health care from DC will never be an efficient use of taxpayer money. He would point out that increased competition is more likely to reduce overall health care cots. However his biggest mistake was not finding a way to cover people with preexisting conditions.

So, wrapping up ...
Obama's GPA: 3.1
McCain's GPA: 2.2

Next Up, Personal Characteristics ... Leadership, Intelligence, and Likeability

Readiness Report Card

2008-09-21T21:48:00.006-04:00

The more I pay attention to politics, the more I regret paying attention to politics. The issues of today and tomorrow are incredibly complex and I am not confident that either ticket has distinguished themselves in their ability to respond and react effectively. So, I have decided to decompose each ticket based on their readiness or experience along key Presidential/Executive responsibilities. This is not a measure of how they would or could perform in office. No. This is more a cursory analysis of their relative experience to manage each responsibility.

Here are the criteria for the report card: 1. Financial Management, 2. Foreign Affairs, 3. Commander in Chief, and lastly 4. Legislative Ability.

1. Financial Management.
Sara Palin: D+. Responsible for $11Bn budget for Alaska (but no state taxes), plus multiple campaign budgets. Both pale in comparison to the scope and complexity of the federal government. Doubt she or any of the other candidates understand the complexities of our markets, our regulations, or the solution options.
Barack Obama, Joe Biden, & John McCain: D-
They have each raised millions of dollars in contributions. Barack in the order of $400 million ... but John and Joe have managed campaign contributions for more cycles. Nonetheless the D- is generous for each.

2. Foreign Affairs.
Joe Biden: B+. Long time outspoken member of the foreign relations committee. Now chairs the committee.
John McCain: B-. Foreign policy experience rooted in military experience, reestablishing relationships with Vietnam, and Armed Services committee.
Barack Obama: D+. I guess meeting foreign dignitaries counts for something.
Sara Palin: F. Nothing to write, must be an F. I almost kicked her out of our esteemed institution based on the academic dishonesty of the proximity to Russia argument.

3. Commander in Chief.
John McCain: A-. Credible military record of success and results beyond POW experience. Ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Sara Palin: C-. As a Governor, she is the commander in chief of the state military forces and must comply with national security directives. Petty, but it counts.
Joe Biden & Barack Obama: F. Please alert me if I am missing something.

4. Legislative Ability.
John McCain: B. Has credible national examples of bi-partisan legislation. Served in both the House and the Senate.
Joe Biden. B. Well respected member of the Senate. Started career as an anti-War candidate, pro civil rights, and "change". Sound familiar. Can also credit authoring national legislation.
Barack Obama. C+. Not much national legislative experience. Gets some credit for responsibilities in Chicago and Illinois.
Sara Palin. D. Acting as mayor and governor doesn't speak to your ability to author and pass federal legislation.

GPA's
McCain - 2.52
Biden - 1.74
Obama - 1.07
Palin - 1.00

This would appear to be directionally correct. But I shouldn't compare them individually. Let's compare the ticket. If you take the best scores from each of the categories the result would be ...

Republican - 2.68 (Palin adds some points in the Financial Mgmt Category for McCain)
Democratic - 1.74 (Obama doesn't help Biden)

Experience doesn't guarantee success ... but it would sure help me feel better about my vote. McCain seems to have the most experience but B-/C+ students don't always engender the greatest amount of trust.

Final Thoughts on the Olympics

2008-09-01T21:08:00.005-04:00

1. Beijing ... the first of many.
China put on a great show. From the opening to the closing ceremonies everything seemed to be perfectly choreographed and executed. The pollution was a non story and they had a reported 1.7 million volunteers. The volunteers were doing everything from directing traffic, helping tourists, security and cheerleaders for all Olympic participants. In my brief lifetime it has felt that the Olympics have been in the U.S. all the time ('84 Summer, '92 Summer, '02 Winter). Maybe China will and should be more frequent hosts.

2. No love for the Paralympic and Special Olympics.
NBC tried to manufacture heart felt, human interest stories throughout the Olympic coverage. Instead of contrived stories of overcoming the "odds" couldn't we watch true heroic stories? Couldn't NBC devote a weekend to cover the Paralympic Games or Special Olympics? Would it hurt ratings so much to replace the flood of reality and senseless comedies with some coverage of true human interest stories? Both the Paralympic and Special Olympic events are covered in the fall. And I know the fall seasons are dominated by American Football, but NBC doesn't have a TV football contract. Tape delay a couple of events to cut costs and have some meaningful programming on a Saturday morning.

3. Medal Count Insight.
Generally the medal count is stupid. Sure China and the U.S won the most medals ... they should. Can China or the US claim victory when a island with about 1/300th the population of the US and 1/2000th the population of China stole the track and field show during the second week of the Olympics. I think it is far more enlightening to see the trends in the medal count. Draw your own conclusions and justifications.

In 1984 ... when I first remember the Olympics the top 15 counties in the medal count standings were. Country - Total (Gold Medals)

1 United States - 174 (83)
2 Romania - 53 (20)
3 West Germany – 59 (17)
4 China – 32 (15)
5 Italy – 32 (14)
6 Canada – 44 (10)
7 Japan – 32 (10)
8 New Zealand – 11 (8)
9 Yugoslavia – 18 (7)
10 South Korea - 19 (6)
11 Great Britain – 37 (5)
12 France – 28 (5)
13 Netherlands – 13 (5)
14 Australia – 24 (4)
15 Finland - 12 (4)

In 2008 the standings were ...
1 China - 100 (51)
2 United States - 110 (36)
3 Russia Federation – 72 (23)
4 Great Britain – 47 (17)
5 Germany – 41 (16)
6 Australia – 46 (14)
7 Korea – 31 (13)
8 Japan – 25 (9)
9 Italy – 28 (8)
10 France - 40 (7)
11 Ukraine – 27 (7)
12 Netherlands – 16 (7)
13 Jamaica – 11 (6)
14 Spain – 18 (5)
15 Kenya - 14 (5)

It is interesting to see China's rise, the 'new' Countries, the 'gone' countries, and everything in between. The world has changed dramatically in 24 years. And shamefully, these events barely register in my daily life and daily conversation.

To both of my avid readers ... next I have to address Barack and McCain and media coverage of the most important election of our lives.

Some Olympic Notes ...

2008-08-17T22:42:00.010-04:00

Observation # 1 – That is Strengff.

Male gymnasts are crazy strong. What the hell is he doing?

Observation # 2 - Mr. Bolt, You are really fast.

At 9.69 seconds per 100 meters, Mr. Bolt (anyone that fast you refer to as Mister) was travelling at 23 miles per hour. Or in football terms that is equivalent to running a 40 yard dash in 3.54 seconds. (Note: Football players are considered very fast when they run a 40 yard dash in 4.20 seconds). Last shocker ... If Mr. Bolt could maintain that pace he would run a mile in 2 minutes and 35 seconds or a marathon in just over an hour.

Observation # 3 - Time is relative.

Back to Mr. Bolt for a second … Richard Thompson finished in second place in the 100 meter dash. Although he finished only 0.2 seconds behind, it seemed like he wasn't even close. The difference of 0.2 seconds is about 2% slower than Usain Bolt's time. But as we saw 2% is a big difference. Consider the following ... Have you heard of Mr. Michael Phelps? Maybe you have seen him crush those other swimmers in individual events, medleys, relays ... but he never won by a greater percentage margin than Mr. Bolt.

Observation # 4 - Top that!

Speaking of Mr. Phelps... What do you do for an encore in London in 2012? You can't quit, you are too young. Going for 8 again would be anti-climatic and probably too difficult. My suggestion is to go for 30 Medals (The record is 18 held by Olympic gymnast Larissa Latynina). You have 16 and you are 23 years old. It is not inconceivable that you can participate in 2 more Olympic games. Get 8 in 2012 (a mix of Gold, Silver, and Bronze) and then get 6 more in 2016. Can you imagine the Sports Illustrated picture of him with all of his medals around his neck?

Observation # 5 – Again, I am speechless.

Some events boggle the mind. In doing research for this blog I found this. Check out these YouTube clips of the Olympic sport Trampoline. Oh, if you are curious ... China won gold and silver in this event.
Good - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S_Nns4CRknY
Bad - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWMbsgEf1uE&NR=1

Social Security ...

2008-08-03T22:30:00.006-04:00

I will admit that each time I get my social security statement I smile. I open the envelop uttering ... "Show me the Money". It says clearly that "At your current earnings rate, if you stop working and start receiving benefits at age 62 your payment would be about $1,518 a month" (Aside - why does it say about. Aren't slide rules good enough to give me a precise number.) It goes on to tell me about how much I would get if I kept working until 70 or if I become disabled. Seems all good.

BUT ....

Every time I mention social security benefits to my friends and even my financial adviser they say "don't count on it", "you won't see a dime", or my favorite "you are fool to believe you will see any of that money". What?! Why?! It is inconceivable to me that the government won't have my money. According to my Social Security Statement the government started taxing me when I was 16 and won't stop taxing until I stop working. And just when I enter the twilight of my existence on this planet, the government that took my money for 40 years will tell me that the funds are no longer available. Not acceptable.

So what gives ...

Here's where I prove I am write (purposeful).

Let's assume Congress and the President don't pass any legislation to "save" social security before insolvency. I have lost faith in our government's ability to pass meaningful future based legislation … so this seems like a very reasonable assumption. The next assumption is the time to insolvency. The Social Security administrators say 2041; Congressional Budget Office says 2052. Aren't we using the same slide rules ladies and gents? Why are you off by 11 years? Numerical imprecision on this scale on issues of this importance seems incomprehensible and upsetting – but whatever. Let's assume the worst at 2041. Let's finally assume I will retire at 67. I chose 67 simply because that means I retire in 2041 and it corresponds to my full retirement age.

So what do I get? According to the Social Security Administrators I would receive about 75% of my scheduled benefit. Not 100%, but certainly greater than nothing. Why? Just because the surplus is gone I will still be collecting from the naive 16 year olds wondering what the heck is FICA. FICA is old people. At 67, I am FICA. Thanks young buck.

My prediction is that some legislation over the next 35 years will be passed to help Social Security. They will either raise taxes (rate or cap), ensure full coverage (I didn't know some jobs were exempt from FICA taxes), find a way to increase returns, increase retirement age, or something. But in my humble opinion there are two under reported options. Both options may be more likely than anything I wrote about previously. Remember the government has two big Aces in its hand. First Ace - Borrow. You can borrow for Iraq you can borrow for social security. “It is time that we become patriotic for something besides war” (John Edwards). The Iraq war spending could have taken the social security coffers into the 22nd century. Second Ace - Print Money. Of course that leads to inflation but I could argue that is a longer time problem for my kids and their kids. Their problem, not mine. Show me the money!

Cheese and ...

2008-07-27T21:50:00.008-04:00

Hypothetically ... Very Hypothetically

Let's say there is a young Black man who has risen to the top of his law firm through hard work, interpersonal skills, and intellect. He is well liked and well respected. He is currently managing a team of 2 people. All white. Bobby and his team share many laughs, go to lunch together, and he recently supported an out of cycle promotion for both of them.

On one nondescript afternoon a lawyer from a competitive law firm that is providing legal services to the same client suggests that Bobby and his team's work is flawed. Bobby and his team are confident that the brief is accurate, well-researched, and any errors would not be the result of anyone but the other firm. This is a classic example of when it is easier to blame someone else than to admit to your own error. Plus the accuser has a reputation for being less than an intellectual heavyweight. His name is Steve, affectionately referred to by Bobby's team as "Dumb Steve".

Still, Bobby's teammate wonders aloud if they should still send the brief in light of the competitor's position. The brief was promised to the client that afternoon and without hesitation and quite nonchalantly Bobby says, "We are going to send the brief. I don't care what that CRACKER said."

First, Silence ....

Then, Raucous Laughter ...

Teammate # 1 says "Who did you go to lunch with. You must have forgotten where you were". Teammate # 2 says "That's a quarter" (A reference to the $0.25 jar when teammates are "fined" for language or other inappropriate workplace comments).

Mortified, Bobby apologizes profusely, pays his "fine" and the team continues their work for the day as they would any other nondescript afternoon.

As you read this hypothetical, very hypothetical post, were you offended? Did you laugh? Should Bobby be reported? Are those that are offended or suggest that Bobby be reported overly sensitive? Would it have been different if Bobby's teammate did something similar but used the N-word? Should it have been different? Is this just an example of too much Dave Chappelle and Chris Rock?

Does is make sense to wait in line for gas?

2008-07-20T00:21:00.008-04:00

I was at Costco the other day and gas was selling for $3.95 a gallon, or about ten cents cheaper than the Exxon across the street. Since I was there, I thought about filling up until I saw the line was at about 8 cars deep. I made an exaggerated expression of disgust and surprise that can best be translated into "whatever". Clearly waiting in line with my wife and two kids really wasn't a viable option.

But on the way home I thought, should I have waited? Is it better to wait in line to save $0.10 a gallon?

Hmm ... A little intellectual restlessness ...

According to the American Society of Mechanical Engineers the average engine uses 0.5 gal while idling for 90 minutes; and 0.5 gal is used every 60 minutes of idle time with the AC on. It was about 95 degrees that day so my AC was crankin ' full blast. (Side note, That means a car with a 20 gallon tank could idle for about 2 and a half days. Interesting. This also means the AC really does use more gas, considerably more ... but i digress - Thanks Brian for everything).

According to the EPA gas pumps cannot exceed a dispense rate of 10 gallons per minute. Assuming a 20 gallon tank, pumping would take about 2 minutes. But I think 5 minutes is a better estimate of total elapsed time from car to car. Getting out of the car, finding your credit card, swiping your credit card, accepting the car wash option - but declining the undercarriage wash, etc. It all takes time.

So, for every 2 cars or 10 minutes of idling time, it costs you about $0.33 cents at today's prices of $4.00 per gallon. But I would have saved much more, $2 dollars ($0.10 x 20 gallons) more, by waiting in line and pumping from the cheaper gas at Costco. These estimates suggest it would take an hour (or about 12 cars in line) to make up the difference in gas prices. A workable crude rule of thumb ... every car in line is worth a little less than 1 penny in gas price. So, if the line is about 5 cars deep, you better be getting at least 5 cents off in gas prices. So I guess my impatience got the better of me and I was wrong to pass up the cheaper gas.

But alas ... shouldn't I factor the value of my time into equation? That question will be pondered in a later post.